1984 P Cr (PLP)

Abdul Rahim respondent has filed ,a complaint on the 21st of March, 1974 (Annexure 'E') against the present petitioner raising the allegation that the petitioner had let the cattle loose in the land which was under the ownership and possession of Abdul Rahim respondent and had thus damaged the standing crops. On the same grounds his earlier complaint was dismissed in default on the 5th of February, 1974. Anyway, the Magistrate after recording the statement of Abdul Rahim respondent as well as preliminary evidence, summoned the petitioner to appear in his Court on the 29th of July, 1974, and to answer to charges under sec tion 347/447/506, P. P. C.

2. It is contended before me on behalf of the petitioner that Abdur Rahim respondent first filed a suit for the grant of perpetual injunction against the petitioner and another for not raising any construction on the disputed piece of land. This suit was instituted to 1.973 in the civil Court, but it was dismissed on the 4th of September, 1973 for the reason that Abdul Rahim respondent could not produce any document on the basis of which his ownership or possession of the disputed land could be estab lished. Abdul Rahim respondent did not file any appeal against the order of the civil Court which consequently attained finality (Annexures `A' and 'B'). After having failed in the civil Court he proceeded against the petitioner through the Revenue .Courts y filing a suit under section 77 (3) of the Punjab Tenancy Act. In this ,suit he claimed himself to be the tenant of the petitioner and another and prayed that they may be res trained from objecting or dispossessing him from the disputed land. This suit was dismissed on the 10th of October, 1973, by the Tehsildar (Annexure `.C'). The appeal was dismissed by the Collector, Lahore, on the 30th of July, 1974. I am told that he bas filed a revision against the aforesaid orders before the Commissioner which is pending at present. In the background of this litigation it is contended before me by learned counsel for the petitioner that Abdur Rahim respondent could neither establish himself as owner of the disputed land nor could establish his possession over the same in the civil Court, and when he had failed in the civil Court he claimed himself to be a tenant of the landlords i. e. the petitioner and another and proceeded against them in the Revenue Courts. It is contended by learned counsel that now in order to harass the petitioner he has proceeded against him criminally and filed the present criminal complaint. The argument of learned counsel is that the object of filing of the present complaint is no other than to put pressure on the petitioner so that he could not construct any building on the disputed land. It may be pointed out that according to the findings of the civil Court the P. T. D. of the disputed land was issued in the name of one Muhammad Ali. He divided the said land into two portions. He sold one portion 'to Khalid Khan, Khalid Khan then sold that portion to Col. Ghulam Mustafa and Col. Ghulam Mustafa sold the same to Sh. Aftab Ahmad. The other portion was sold by Muhammad Ali to Khawar Khan. Khawar Khan sold it to Mst. Sughran. The present petitioner is attorney. Sh. Aftab Ahmad got the plan approved for construction over the portion of land purchased by him from the Co-operative Model Town Society and raised construction thereon. It was in order to restrain him from raising construction that Abdur Rahim respondent had filed the civil suit. I see force in the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner to the effect that the criminal complaint had been filed in order to harass the petitioner. In the light of the previous litigation between the parties i am convinced in my mind that if I were to allow this criminal complaint to proceed it A would amount to abuse of the process of the Court. In that view of the matter the proceedings in the case Abdur Rahim v. Sh. Aftab Ahmad and another under section 347/447/506, P. P. C. pending in the Court of Malik Najib Ullah Magistrate 1st Class, Lahore, are hereby quashed. This petition is accepted. M. Y. H. Proceedings quashed.