2013 PLP 2203 (YLR)

SHAH JEHAN KHAN AKHUND-ZADA, J.

This writ petition has been directed against the order dated 4-1-2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-V D.I.Khan, whereby the accused/respondents Nos.1 to 5 have been acquitted of the charge levelled against them under sections 3/4 of the Illegal Dispossesion Act by invoking the provisions of section 265-K, Cr.P.C.

2. According to the complaint lodged by the complainant/petitioner, the allega-tions against the accused/respondents are that they have forcibly and illegally dispossessed the petitioner from his house situated in village Bhirki within the limits of Police Station Paroa, District D.I. Khan.

3. After the receipt of report by the S.H.O. of Police Station Paroa and recording statements of the complainant and P.W. Allah Wasaya, the accused/ respondents submitted an application for their acquittal under section 265-K, Cr.P.C. to the trial Court which was allowed through the order impugned herein.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner vociferously argued that the impugned order is patently illegal and based on surmises and conjecturers. He argued that the learned trial Judge has acted in haste while acquitting the accused/respondents through the impugned order and he was required to have decided the case on merits after recording pro and contra evidence of the parties. His submission was that the learned trial Judge has even not considered the report of the Inquiry Officer/S.H.O. in totality and thus he has failed to appraise the materials available on record in its true perspective while passing the impugned order which is thus liable to be set aside.

5. Having heard and considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner in the light of available record, it transpires that the complainant in the cross-examination admitted that one Mst. Saddu Mai, his paternal aunt is residing in the disputed house while for the last 20/22 years, he is residing in District Bhakkar. The record further discloses that the accused/respondents have also a reasonable claim over the dispute house and a criminal case under sections 448/427/506/34, P.P.C. is pending between the accused/respondent Ehsanullah and one Ghulam Rasool. From the available facts and circumstances of the case, it reveals that the dispute between the parties is of a civil nature because both of them claim its ownership. The record further discloses that due to the past heavy floods, the building and superstructure of the house in question is not existing. Moreover, there is no conclusive, unimpeachable and reliable ocular and circumstantial evidence available on record to believe that the respondents have committed the offence in question and there is any probability of the accused being convicted. Therefore, in these circumstances, the learned trial Judge has rightly invoked the provisions of section 265-K, Cr.P.C. and correctly acquitted the accused/respondents which cannot be interfered by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction.

6. As a result, we find no merit in this writ petition which is hereby dismissed in limine. MWA/227/P Petition dismissed.