' MUHAMMAD AHSAN BHOON, J.--- Through this constitutional petition Mst. Gulnaz Bibi wife of Iqbal Ahmad seeks the quashing of proceedings under section 145, Cr.P.C. Pending before the learned Special Judicial Magistrate, Chiniot, District Jhang/ respondent No,7.
2. Briefly the claim of the petitioner is that she is occupant of House No,174-Y in Koocha Abdul Ghaffar, Chiniot city, District Jhang and original owner of the house above mentioned was Sh. Ellahi Bakhsh. One Manzoor father-in-law of the petitioner was servant of the aforesaid original owner.
Soon after the partition, the original owner migrated to Karachi and he gifted verbally the above said house in favour of afore said Manzoor and since then the premises remained in possession of in-laws of the petitioner as well as her husband, namely Iqbal who is residing in the same house. It was alleged that respondents Nos.1 to 6 are property dealers and they belong to a "Qabza group" and want to grab the said property and proceedings under section 145, Cr.P.C. Initiated before the learned Magistrate by respondents Nos.1 and 6 against respondent No,3 are liable to be quashed.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that "Kalandara" under section 145, Cr.P.C. Was prepared by the concerned S.H.O. And on the basis of the same, the impugned proceedings are illegal and the civil suit filed by the petitioner is pending sub judice before the learned Civil Court where the title of the property could be determined and report of Local Commission which was appointed by the learned Civil Court also goes in favour of the petitioner. Hence the proceedings under section 145, Cr.P.C. Are mere abuse of process of law as well as of Court. Learned counsel further. Submitted that the petitioner was not party before the learned Magistrate but she filed an application to be impleaded as party on 13-3-2008 which was allowed by the learned Magistrate whereby the petitioner was impleaded as party and now under the garb of above said proceedings, respondents want to eject the petitioner as well as her husband from the property in question. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment reported as 1995 PCr.LJ 1912 and 1996 PCr.LI 444.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents Nos.1 to 6 has argued that the constitutional petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable as she has not approached this Court with clean hands and stated that in fact Manzoor father-in-law of the petitioner was the servant of aforesaid original owner and said Manzoor was care-taker of above mentioned property and the original owner sold the house to Abid Hussain Shah/respondent No,6 and accordingly possession was handed over to the vendees and said Manzoor Ahmad, father-in-law of the petitioner had already executed an "Iqrarnama" in favour of respondent No,6 and other vendees, wherein he stated that he was living in the above said premises without any rent as he was allowed to live there by original owner Sh. Elahi Bakhsh and his heirs. The heirs of said Ellahi Bakhsh sold the above said property to Abid Hussain Shah/respondent No,6 and others and said Manzoor was accordingly directed by the owners to deliver the possession to the vendees and the petitioner as well as her husband has nothing to do with the property rather they are blackmailing the vendees. He further contends that contradictory stand of petitioner is evident from the report of Local Commission that petitioner made a statement that she was gifted the said premises/house, whereas in the civil suit filed by her she has stated that father-in-law of the petitioner was gifted the said house by the original owners.
5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties I have gone through the documents produced by the parties.
6. As per claim of the petitioner, her father-in-law was gifted the aforesaid premises by one Sh.
Ellahi Bakhsh and Manzoor Ahmad father-in-law of the petitioner is alive and he has not challenged the proceedings under section 145, Cr.P.C. And the petitioner at any stretch of imagination cannot claim herself as aggrieved person, within the meaning of Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. Admittedly an Iqrarnama executed by Manzoor Ahmad (father-in-law of petitioner) in favour of respondent No,6 has been placed on file by respondents Nos.1 to 6 wherein he has categorically stated that the premises, which is subject- matter of the proceedings under section 145, Cr.P.C. Has been sold by the legal heirs of Ellahi Bakhsh and they have instructed him to hand over the possession to respondent No,6 and other vendees. He further stated therein that the petitioner as well as her husband were living separately in a Haveli of one Sh. Akram and now wanted to blackmail the vendees under the garb of their relationship with said Manzoor Ahmad. It has further been mentioned in the Iqrarnama that Manzoor Ahmad has handed over the possession to A respondent No,6 and other vendees but his son Balu (Iqbal) who is husband of the petitioner due to ulterior consideration being in league with his other in-laws want to illegally occupy the premises and for that reason there is an apprehension of breach of peace. It would be important to mention over here that the said Iqrarnama has also been signed by one Shaukat Ali who is also son of said Manzoor and "Dever" of the petitioner. All these facts would show that the petitioner being a relative of said Manzoor wants to take advantage and prima facie is blackmailing respondent No,6 and others. The case-law relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner is distinguishable, as in both the aforesaid cases on the basis of civil proceedings an injunctive order was passed whereby the possession of the premises was being regulated. But in the instant case, in civil suit filed by the petitioner there is no injunctive order in her favour so she cannot be given bonus to occupy the premises on the basis of a civil suit when admittedly neither she is owner nor she was ever gifted the said property by any of the owners, whereas the case-law relied upon by the learned counsel for respondents Nos.1 to 6 reported as PLD 2006 SC 117 is quite applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case.
Relevant portion of the same is reproduced below:-- "Mere prolongation of dispute qua possession cannot be pressed into service as an absolute rule for holding that no apprehension of breach of peace existed within meaning of section 145.
Similarly, pendency of civil suit would be immaterial qua exercise of power under section 145 because a civil suit ultimately decides the entitlement of the parties and not the immediate dispute over possession leading to imminent danger of breach of peace. In such case, Magistrate and Additional Sessions Judge would be right in passing order under section 145 on ground of imminent danger of breach of peace by ignoring pendency of civil suit between the parties. High Court would act illegally in exercising its inherent jurisdiction under section 561-A and in quashing concurrent orders of Magistrate and Additional Sessions Judge. Supreme Court converting leave petition against order of High Court into appeal allowing appeal, setting aside order of High Court and restoring concurrent orders of Additional Sessions Judge Magistrate.
' It would not be in fitness of things for High Court to have quashed proceedings under section 145 in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under section 561-A simply because the High Court held some different view of the same evidence."
' In view of the above discussion, this petition having no merits is dismissed.