MUHAMMAD YAWAR ALI, J.---This petition filed under sections 435 and 439, Cr.P.C. read with Section 3 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, is directed against an order dated 31-8-2010, passed by respondent No,1 wherein a private complaint filed by the petitioner against respondents Nos.2 and 3 was dismissed.
2. Briefly stated facts of the case necessary for the disposal of this petition are that the petitioner filed a petition dated 16-6-2010, wherein it was alleged that respondents Nos.2 and 3 herein along with Mst. Naila Bibi former wife of the petitioner forcibly occupied a house owned by the petitioner after illegally dispossessing him from the same. The petitioner appeared as P.W.1 and in his cursory statement stated that he had divorced his wife Mst. Naila Bibi and the latter in connivance with her brothers respondents Nos.2 and 3 had illegally dispossessed him from his house and occupied the same without any legal authority. That F.I.R. bearing No,168 of 2010 in this regard had been registered at Police Station Peoples Colony, District Gujranwala on 15-4-2010. The private complaint was dismissed by respondent No,1 on 31-8-2010 on the ground that no material particulars of the act of illegal dispossession were given in the complaint and from the record of the case it transpired that Mst. Naila Bibi former wife of the complainant was residing in the house since her "Talaq" and she had never handed over the possession of the house to the complainant.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that material particulars of offence in question have been given in the private complaint filed under Section 3 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, as is evident from the averments contained in paragraphs Nos.3, 4 and 5 of the complaint.
That an F.I.R. bearing No,168 of 2010 dated 15-4-2010 for offences under sections 452, 380, 447, 337- L(2), 337-A(1), 34, P.P.C. registered at Police Station Peoples Colony, District Gujranwala was in any case appended with the private complaint wherein all material particulars had been given. That the learned trial Court summoned a report from the concerned SHO. The concerned SHQ in his report dated 27-6-2010 stated that property in question was not owned by respondents Nos.2 and 3 and the latter had no legal justification to retain custody of the same. That the private complaint against respondents Ws. 2 and 3 could proceed in-spite of the fact that the latter had not been declared to be land grabbers or members of land mafia.
4. The learned DPG has opposed the petition and submitted that a bare reading of paragraph No,4 of the complaint would show that no material particulars with regard to date and time of illegal dispossession have been given. According to the complaint, the petitioner was illegally dispossessed by respondents Nos.2 and 3 along with his former wife Mst. Naila Bibi. Mst. Naila Bibi has neither been arrayed as a respondent nor proceeded against. That on the complaint of the complainant an F.I.R. bearing No,168 of 2010 dated 15-4-2010 was registered at Police Station Peoples Colony, District Gujranwala against respondents Nos. 2 and 3 and in the F.I.R., the petitioner has admitted that his former wife Mst. Naila Bibi was already in possession of the house. Since respondents Nos. 2 and 3 are not members of land mafia and have not been declared to be land grabbers, the private complaint filed against them was not maintainable.
5. After adopting the arguments of the learned DPG, the learned counsel for respondents Nos. 2 and 3 submits that there is contradiction between the averments as contained in the private complaint which was filed and the F.I.R. which was registered. In the private complaint it was submitted that the petitioner divorced his wife on 5-2-2010, however, in the F.I.R. which was registered on 15-4-2010, the petitioner has stated that he had a quarrel with his wife and thereafter she along with her brothers i.e, respondents Nos. 2 and 3 illegally occupied his house.
6. After going through the complaint and perusal of the record it is clear that the complaint has not given any material particulars of the alleged act of dispossession. It was essential for the complainant to give all the material particals with regard to act of illegal dispossession in the complaint itself. I the absence of material particulars, exact time and date of the alleged act of dispossession, no roving inquiry is to be conducted by the learned trial Court to ascertain whether or not the complainant was disposed in terms of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. That the complainant lodged an F.I.R. bearing No,168 of 2010 dated 15-4-2010 at Police Station Peoples Colony, District Gujranwala in respect of the same occurrence. Once an F.I.R. was registered then a complaint under section 3 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, would not be competent in react of the same occurrence as has been held by a Full Bench of this Court in "Zahoor Ahmed and 5 others v. The State and 3 others" (PLD 2 7 Lahore 231). Disputes between rival parties over possession or title of immoveable property have been there since time immemorial. There are various remedies available to a person who claims that he has been illegally dispossessed from immoveable property both on the civil and criminal side. A new class of persons have emerged in our society who are referred to as property grabbers or in local parlance as Qabza Group. Illegal Dispossession Act 2005 was enacted to take to task those persons who have antecedents of grabbing property. It is essential to differentiate between a case where a person is accused of a solitary act of illegal dispossession and where a person proceeded against is a professional land grabber and is notorious for grabbing property as and when an opportunity presents itself. In this case there is not an iota ofo-evidence to establish that respondents Nos. 2 and 3 had any characteristics or antecedents of a land grabber. The spirit of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 is to proceed against persons who are professional land grabbers or members of land Mafia and not against a person. accused of a solitary act of illegal dispossession. The august Supreme Court of Pakistan while deciding the case titled "Bashir Ahmad v. Additional Sessions Judge, Faisalabad and four others" (Civil Petition No,814-L of 2006) has reaffirmed the law as laid down by a Full Bench of this Court in "Zahoor Ahmed and 5 others v. The State and 3 others" (PLD 2007 Lahore 231) in its entirety.
7. For what has been stated above, this petition being without any merit is dismissed.