1997 PLP 2075 (MLD)

(b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S.506/382/448/148/149‑‑‑Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.561‑A‑‑ Quashing of order of Magistrate summoning the accused‑‑‑Magistrate after having assessed the evidence recorded at the preliminary stage in the complaint had summoned the accused to face the trial for having forced their entry in the land of the complainant which even according to the accused was jointly held by all of them alongwith the complainant being a joint Khata‑‑‑None of the accused being a party in the civil suit pending regarding the disputed land the same could not in any way close down the criminal process arising out of the alleged offences attributed to the accused‑‑‑Impugned order passed by the Magistrate summoning the accused being well within law, proceedings initiated against them could not be quashed at such stage‑‑‑Petition was dismissed in limine accordingly. 1968 SCMR 1256 and 1987 SCMR 795 ref. Sardar Muhammad Latif Khan Khosa, Advocate. The petitioners have been summoned to face the trial under section 506/382/448/148/149, P.P.C., vide order dated 23‑9‑1996 passed by Ch. Rafiq Dad, Magistrate Section 30, Mianwali for committing trespass into the agricultural land of complainant Muhammad Sadiq and thereby taking the land into illegal possession, while some of them were armed with fire‑arms and also after threatening the complainant.

2. The petitioners challenged the aforesaid order in a revision petition, which was dismissed by Mr. Jahangir Ali Sheikh, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mianwali vide order dated 8‑1‑1997.

3. In this quashment petition, it is contended that the land in question belonged jointly to the parties, who are alleged to be in joint possession. In that way the petitioners claimed to be in possession of the land in question and had entered the field in order to harvest the crop. The matter was also allegedly pending on the civil side and as such there :vas no ground for criminal action. In this regard, it was further contended that the matter was probed into by the police and since it was considered to be a case of civil nature, therefore, no cognizance was taken. However, the complainant filed a private complaint before the Magistrate, which resulted into the impugned order. Reliance was placed on 1968 SCMR 1256 to show that a false complaint can be quashed if it is found that the process of Court was being abused and was resulting into unnecessary harassment. Further, it was contended that quashment would be called for if the dispute between the parties was of civil nature. Reliance was placed on 19R E SCMR 795.

4. I have considered the foregoing contentions and have also gone through the record and the authorities cited at the Bar. It is well‑settled law that quashment of criminal proceedings should only be directed if, the complaint was palpably false and its prosecution led to the harassment of the other party. In that way each case Will have to be examined on its own merits in order to reach a conclusion whether or not the complaint was false or amounted to the abuse of process of Court. The basic principle should, however, be kept in mind that criminal prosecution should not be unnecessarily throttled or guillotined in its preliminary stage. In the instant case, the learned Magistrate while entertaining the complaint has considered the statement of the complainant and other witnesses examined at the preliminary stage. On analysing the evidence examined before him, he decided to summon the petitioners for the offences mentioned above as they had forced their entry in the land of the complainant which even according to the petitioners is jointly held by all of them alongwith the complainant being a joint Khata. Though there is civil case also pending regarding the land in question, but in that case one of the respondents i.e., complainant Muhammad Sadiq is a defendant whereas none of the petitioners is alleged to be a party. In such a situation, the mere fact that a civil suit is pending would not in any way close down the criminal process arising out of the alleged offences attributed to the petitioners. The impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate summoning the petitioners is well within law and the revision petition against that order has rightly been dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. There is no case for the quashment of proceedings initiated against the petitioners, at this stage. This petition is accordingly dismissed in limine. Civil Miscellaneous Application No. l of 1997 Disposed of. N.H.Q./H‑20/L Petition dismissed.