ORDER SHEET
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, BENCH AT SUKKUR
Cr.
Revision Appln. No. S- 03 of 2015
Date Order
with Signature of Hon’ble Judge
Priority case
1.
For
hearing of main case
2.
For
orders on MA No.178/2016 (S/A)
25.03.2019
Mr. Mushtaque Ahmed Shahani, Advocate
for the applicant
Mr. Ghulam Mujtaba Sahito Advocate for respondent No.1
Syed Sardar Ali Shah DPG
for the State
>>>>>>>>…<<<<<<<
IRSHAD ALI SHAH, J.- The
applicant by way of instant Criminal Revision Application has impugned order
dated 09.12.2014 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge Naushahro Feroze, whereby direct complaint
filed by the private respondent for the prosecution of the applicant for having
committed an offence punishable under sections 3/ 4 of the Illegal Dispossession
Act, 2005, for having occupied his landed property was brought on record.
2. It
is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant being
innocent has been involved in this case falsely by the private respondent in
order to satisfy his dispute with him over landed property and learned trial Court
has passed the impugned order without lawful justification. By contending so, he
sought for setting aside of the impugned order. In support of his contention,
he has relied upon the cases of Asim Siddique Butt vs. Muhammad Khursheed
Mirza and others (2017 Y L R 64); Nazo
vs. Ali Murad and 10 others (2017 Y L R Note 305) and
Allah Rakhio and another vs. The State and 04 others
(2017 Y L R 409).
3. Learned DPG for the State and learned
counsel for the private respondent have sought for dismissal of the instant
Criminal Revision Application by contending that the impugned order is well
reasoned. In support of their contentions, they have relied upon the cases of Nabi Bux and 6 others vs. Ghulam
Muhammad and others (P L D 2008 Karachi 518); Muhammad Usman
vs. IVth Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Hyderabad and 4 others (P L D 2011 Karachi 624) and Inayatan
Khatoon and others vs. Muhammad Ramzan
and others (2012 SCMR 229).
4. I have considered the above arguments and perused the
record.
5. As per private respondent he and his
brothers are owners of the landed property under dispute, which is occupied
illegally by the applicant. In that situation, learned trial Court was right to
bring the direct complaint so filed by the private respondent on record for
prosecution of the applicant for having committed an offence punishable u/s ¾
of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. The civil litigation between the
parties may be pending but there could be made no denial to the fact that no
harm would be caused to either of the party, if civil and criminal litigation
is allowed to continue side by side. If the applicant is having a feeling that
he being innocent has been involved in this case falsely by the private
respondent then he is having an ample opportunity to prove his innocence by
joining the trial.
6. The
case-law which is relied upon by learned counsel for the applicant is on
distinguishable facts and circumstances. In case of Asim
Siddique Butt (supra),
the direct complaint was filed with delay of four years of the alleged
dispossession and in that context appeal was dismissed. In the instant matter,
the direct complaint is filed soon after alleged dispossession. In case of Nazo (supra), no specific date of dispossession is
disclosed and in that context the revision application was dismissed. In the
instant matter, the specific date of dispossession is disclosed, it is said to
be 25.8.2014. In case of Allah Rakhio and others (supra) the land was mutated in favour of the complainant ‘without possession’ and in that
context the revision application was dismissed. In the instant matter, nothing
has been brought on record which may suggest that the mutation of the land in favour of the private respondent and others was without
possession.
7. No
illegality or material irregularity is pointed out which may justify making
interference with the impugned order by this Court by way of instant Criminal
Revision Application, it is dismissed accordingly.
ARBROHI