Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Section: 145

  Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ---S.145--No hard and fast rule exists to bar proceedings under S.145, Cr.P.C. in every case of apprehension of breach of peace over possession of immovable property on ground of pendency of civil litigation. P L D 1979 S C 470 and P L D 1985 S C 204 distinguished. 1988 P Cr.L J 2268 rel. Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)-- ---Ss.561-A & 145(1)(4)--Quashing of proceedings--Trial Court while passing order under 5.145(1), Cr.P.C. neither applied its judicial mind in the case, nor recorded any reasons for initiation of such proceedings and thus did not comply with the essential requirement of the said provision of law--No material was available on record to enable Trial. Court to treat the case as one of emergency as envisaged by S.145(4), Cr.P.C.--Both the orders passed by Court attaching the disputed property only due to situation created by parties in his Court and further on ground that case could not be expeditiously disposed of unless property was sealed, held, suffered from legal infirmities and were quashed in circumstances with direction to Trial Court to proceed in accordance with law. I.A. Hashmi for Applicants. A. Hafeez Lakho for Respondents. Date of hearing: 10th September, 1989. JUDGMENT The Station House Officer, Police Station, Defence Society, Karachi laid information under section 145 Criminal Procedure Code before the Assistant Commissioner and Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Civil Lines Karachi regarding a dispute likely to cause breach of peace over possession of a house situated on Plot No.23 Mahmoodabad Road, Phase-I Defence Housing Society between Syed Abdul Rahim, Mst. Badar Rahim, Nadeem Rahim and Syed Jalal Rahim on one fpside and Col. (Retd.) G.M. Nizamuddin Asif Nizam, Niamat Nizam, Amirzada and Haroon on the other side. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Saddar ordered to issue notice under section 145(1) of Criminal Procedure Code on 8-6-1987. Pursuant to such notice both the parties put in their written statements. The first party, namely, Syed Abdul Rahim and others claimed that the disputed property was owned by Mst. Badar Rahim who was in possession thereof as its rightful owner. It…