' IJAZ-UL-HASSAN KHAN, J.--- This criminal revision petition is directed against the order, dated 8-11- 2006, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nowshera, whereby complaint filed by Haji Farukh Sair, under section 3 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, was summarily dismissed.
2. Succinctly stated the facts of the case are, that .Haji. Farukh Sair, petitioner filed a complaint in the Court of District and Sessions Judge, Nowshera, on 21-9-2006, against Inayat Ali Shah and his brother Iftikhar alias Khari, respondents, for initiating proceedings against them under sections 3, 4 of The Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. The respondents were accused of having dispossessed the complainant of land located in Khasra No,225/1 and 225/2. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nowshera, 'seized of the matter, dismissed the complaint being not maintainable, by virtue of his order, dated 8-11-2006, giving rise to the filing of instant criminal revision.
3. Appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Mr. Subhanullah, Advocate strenuously contended that impugned order has been recorded in a mechanical manner without application of independent mind; that material on the record has not been appreciated in its true perspective" and that no cogent reason has been given by the Court below for dismissal of the complaint. Additionally he urged that the purpose of investigation as defined in section 4(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code is to collect the evidence, but the report of police submitted before the trial Court shows that no investigation was conducted to collect the evidence for and against the allegations levelled in the complaint and even no further report was acquired by the trial Court from the police; that the learned Additional Sessions Judge should have again referred the matter to S.H.O. Concerned for proper investigation under section 5(1) of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 and further proceedings could be taken up after submission of report by the S.H.O. Concluding the arguments, it was contended that the Court below has failed to record the evidence of the Patwari Halqa, police and the petitioner, which has frustrated the ends of justice. To substantiate the contentions, reliance has been placed on Mir Zafarullah Khan Jamali v. The State through Superintendent of Police Anti-Corruption Establishment Balochistan, Quetta PLD 2001 Quetta 10, Abdul Latif v.
Inspector-General, Police and others 1999 PCr.LJ 1357, Muhammad Younis v. Shahid Cheema and 2 others 2006 PCr.LJ 636 and Anwar Ali Khan and others v. Wahid Bux and others 1991 SCM R 1608.
4. Mr. Ziauddin Siddiqui, Advocate, representing the State, while supporting the impugned order, refuted the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner and maintained that order assailed herein has been passed for valid reasons and no legitimate exception can be taken to it.
5. It stands established from the material on record that both the parties are co-sharers in the disputed property. It is also evident from the record that Khasra No,225/1 is entirely occupied by the public road and Khasra No,225/2 comprises an area measuring 17 Kanals, out of which the petitioner has been shown in possession of two Kanals, while column of ownership concerning the disputed property indicates that both the parties are co-sharers. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents have interfered in the possession of the petitioner over two Kanals of the disputed property but the matter was subsequently patched up and the petitioner was put back in possession. The inquiry report reveals that during the inquiry proceedings, compromise was effected between the parties on the spot. The complaint does not attract the penal provisions of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. The dispute between the parties is of civil nature. Both the parties are co-sharers in the disputed property and the petitioner was not actually dispossessed from the disputed property rather the respondents allegedly had just interfered with his possession. The case-law cited by learned counsel for the petitioner is distinguishable and proceeds on different facts. It is of no assistance to the petitioner.
' Pursuant to above, revision petition having been found bereft of merit, stands dismissed and the impugned order is maintained.