2005 PLP 3210 (YLR)

SH. ABDUL RASHID, J.

The petitioner through this petition seeks quashment of F.I.R. No.58 of 2004, dated 26-11-2004, under sections 380/411, P.P.C. registered at Police Station Kot Sabzal, Tehsil Sadiqabad, District Rahim Yar Khan, on the report of Zulfiqar Ali, complainant, respondent No.3.

2. According to the prosecution allegations set up in the F.I.R. Zulfiqar Ali respondent No.3/complainant had constructed a house in Chak No. 166/NP, situated within the territorial limits of Police Station Kot Sabzal and subsequently, he had shifted his residence at Faisalabad temporarily after having locked the said house and that Muhammad Nazir petitioner No.1 who is his paternal uncle did not give him due share in the agricultural land upon which he and his other uncle Faiz Rasoo. filed a civil suit which was decreed in their favour on 15-11-2003 and being annoyed by the said . fact the petitioners along with others being armed with fire-arms had broke opened the lock' of the house of respondent No.3 and demolished his house comprising of one room and a Viranda and removed two iron girders, 36 wooden pieces (Ballay), two doors and also cut away four Keekar trees standing in the courtyard of the house and removed all the said articles valued of Rs.20,

000. The said occurrence was reported to the complainant by Muhammad Aslam and Muhammad Iqbal P.Ws. who thereafter reached the scene of occurrence and lodged the report with the police.

3. It is pleaded on behalf of the petitioner that they owned 10 square of land in Chak No.166/NP and that the complainant and his uncle started civil litigation against the petitioners and that the house regarding which the occurrence has been alleged belonged to the petitioners and as it had become old and dangerous they had removed its building material and that during the investigation the complainant could not produce any tangible evidence that either he owned any land in the said Chak or had constructed the house and that the house was in the custody and possession of the petitioner and as such no offence had been committed.

4. It is an admitted position by the complainant that at the time of occurrence he was not residing in the said house and no household article was present there which the petitioners or their other companion had allegedly removed. The only allegation against the petitioners is that they had felled the house of the complainant and removed its building material. The complainant during police investigation could not produce any proof that he owned any land in the said Chak or that the said house belonged to him. He was not keeping his residence in the said house which is contiguous to the house of the petitioners. During police investigation the report of Patwari was also obtained which revealed that the complainant party did not own any land or residential plot in the said Chak and Muhammad Nazir petitioner No.1 owned A 10 square of land and only he had permanent residence in Chak No.166/NP and the complainant party did not reside in the said Chak and the disputed house which the complainant claims is contiguous to the house of Muhammad Nazir petitioner No.1 and appeared to be its part. Thus, the complainant did not produce tangible evidence during investigation that the disputed house was either owned by him or was in his possession. Therefore, there is no legal basis for making out this case under section 380, P.P.C. against the petitioners and others.

5. In this view of the matter, this F.I.R. is quashed. H.B.T./M-1316/L F.I.R. quashed.