2006 PLP 1590 (MLD)
MUHAMMAD BOOTA alias BOTTI — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD ASLAM and 3 others — Respondents
| Citation | 2006 PLP 1590 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD BOOTA alias BOTTI — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD ASLAM and 3 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2006 PLP 1590 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2006 PLP 1590 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2006 PLP 1590 (MLD) (MUHAMMAD BOOTA alias BOTTI — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD ASLAM and 3 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Muhammad Din Ansari for Petitioner.
- S.M. Tayyab and Muhammad Hanif Khatana for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 145
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199
Constitutional petition
Four. criminal cases registered against the parties had shown that they were quarrelling at the spot on the dispute of the land in question
S.H.O. thus had rightly submitted the report before the Magistrate in order to maintain peace in the Ilaqa who had ordered for initiating proceedings under S.145; Cr.P.C.
Impugned order passed by Sessions Court setting aside the attachment order passed by the Magistrate was set aside in circumstances
Order of the Magistrate being fight in all respects was restored
Constitutional petition was accepted accordingly.
Judgment & Decree
KHAWAJA MUHAMMAD SHARIF, J.
This judgment will dispose of Writ Petition No.5082 of 2004 directed against the order of the learned Add!: Sessions Judge passed on 26-3-2004 whereby he partially granted the relief against the impugned order, dated 22-3-2004 and set aside the attachment order passed by the learned Ilaqa Judicial Magistrate whereas to the extent of rest of the relief he dismissed the revision.
2. In continuation of my order, dated 8-4-2004, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there are four criminal cases which were registered between the parties and those are still pending so it shows that there was a criminal breach of peace and the S.H.O. was right in submitting the report in this regard before the learned Magistrate who had ordered for initiating proceedings under section 145, Cr.P.C. He further submits that there is a dispute over six kanals of land which is now very expensive land because it is adjacent to main road. He further submits that one Munawar who is real brother of Muhammad Aslam respondent No.1 presently working as Steno grapher with DDR, Jaranwala, where the land is situated. In fact he wanted to sell the said land. He further submits that no damage is being caused due to the sealing order and the proceedings under section 145, Cr.P.C.
3. Learned Addl: A.G. on the other hand supports the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner but requests that a direction be given to the learned trial Court to complete the proceedings under section 145, Cr.P.C. as early, as possible.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents has filed the written reply placing thereon some documents including the proceedings under section 145, Cr.P.C. F.I.Rs. and the Civil suits pending between the parties. He submits that this writ petition is not competent because second revision was barred due to an amendment under section 439, Cr.P.C. and it is just to circumvant the law. He further submits that in the proceedings under sections 107 and 151, Cr.P.C., the present Muhammad Boota is not party, that the physical possession was with the present respondent No. 1, that the learned Magistrate who had ordered for the proceedings under section 145, Cr.P.C. should have determined before passing the said order that who was in actual possession of said land, that the civil suits are pending before the civil Court. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner is only owner of four marlas of land and not 110 kanals of land out of Khata No.293.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also have gone through the order of the learned Magistrate who had ordered for proceedings under sections 145, Cr.P.C. therein it is mentioned that in proceedings under sections 107 and 161, Cr.P.C. name of present petitioner does not figure. There is some other Muhammad Boota who is son of some other person. However, learned counsel for the respondent has himself placed on the record four photocopies of F.I.Rs. I have gone through the same, those cases were registered against the petitioner, respondent No.1 his brother. All the cases are under sections 454/380, P.P.C., 324/148/149, P.P.C. and also under section 506/34, P.P.C., which proves that the parties were quarrelling at the spot on the said dispute of land, so the report of S.H.O. was rightly made and submitted before the learned Magistrate in order to maintain the peace in the Ilaqa. Keeping in view the above circumstances, I am of the view that the order of the learned Magistrate was right in all respect, so while accepting this writ petition, I set aside the order of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge and restore the order of learned Magistrate. However, learned Magistrate is directed to expedite the proceedings under section 145, Cr.P.C. without fail within three months under intimation to Deputy Registrar of this Court. The Deputy Registrar (Judi.) of this Court shall convey the order of this Court to the learned Magistrate within 7 days. N. H. Q. /M-284/L Petition accepted.