' ABDUS SATTAR ASGHAR, J.---Through this petition under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. The petitioner has impugned the order dated 5-5-2009 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bahawalpur whereby order dated 16-3-2009 passed by the Special Judicial Magistrate, Bahawalpur to initiate proceedings under section 145, Cr.P.C., was set aside.
2. Brief facts leading to this petition are that the S.H.O., Police Station Abbas Nagar lodged a report on 2-3-2009 before the Special Judicial Magistrate, Bahawalpur seeking an order to initiate proceedings under section 145, Cr.P.C. Regarding agricultural land measuring 3-K and 7-1/2 M comprising Rectangle No,320/7, Killas No,16/1 and 16/2 situated in Mauza Sanger Tehsil and District Bahawalpur in the territorial jurisdiction of Police Station Abbasnagar on the grounds that the parties have a dispute of ownership with regard to the above mentioned property and no case between the parties is pending in the civil court.
3. The learned Special Judicial Magistrate pursuant to the above noted report of the S.H.O.
Observed in his order dated 16-3-2009 that in the given circumstances court is satisfied that dispute is likely to cause breach of peace and thus ordered to attach and seal the disputed property in terms of section 145, Cr.P.C.
4. Feeling aggrieved Muhammad Fazil and others alleging their ownership in the disputed property assailed the order dated 16-3-2009 through Criminal Revision Petition before the Sessions Judge, Bahawalpur, which Was entrusted to Raja Pervaiz Akhtar, Additional Sessions Judge, Bahawalpur.
The learned Additional Sessions Judge after providing an opportunity of hearing to the parties and perusal of the record accepted the revision petition vide the impugned order dated 5-5-2009 assailed through the instant application under section 561-A, Cr.P.C.
5. At the outset I intend to reproduce the provisions of sections 145(1) and (4), Cr.P.C. As ready reference, which reads below:-- "145. Procedure where dispute concerning land, etc., is likely to cause breach-of peace.---(1) Whenever a Magistrate of the 1st Class is satisfied from a police- report or other information that a dispute likely to cause breach of the peace exists concerning any land or water or the boundaries thereof, within the local limits of his jurisdiction, he shall make an order in writing, stating the grounds of being so satisfied, and requiring the parties concerned in such dispute to attend his Court in person or by pleader, within a time to be fixed by such Magistrate, and to put in written statements of their respective claims as respects the fact of actual possession of the subject of dispute.
(4) Inquiry as to possession.---The Magistrate shall then, without reference to the merits or the claims of any such parties to a right to possess the subject of dispute, peruse the statements so put in, hear the parties, receive all such evidence as may be produced by them respectively, consider the effect of such evidence, take such further evidence (if any) as he thinks necessary, and, if possible, decide whether any and which of the parties was at the date of the order before mentioned in such possession of the said subject: ' Provided that, if it appears to the Magistrate that any party has within two months next before the date of such order been forcibly and wrongfully dispossessed, he may treat the party so dispossessed as if he had been in possession at such date: ' Provided also, that if the Magistrate considers the case one of emergency, he may at any time attach the subject of dispute, pending his decision under this section."
5. Bare perusal of the afore-referred provisions of section 145(1), Cr.P.C. Makes it crystal clear that it was incumbent upon the Magistrate to satisfy himself with regard to possession upon the disputed land. It is sad to notice that neither the S.H.O. Furnished sufficient material with the report nor the learned trial Magistrate bothered to, provide an opportunity of hearing to the parties before passing the impugned order. Perusal of the record further reveals that the learned Special Judicial Magistrate also failed to hold an inquiry into the possession of the parties as required under subsection (4) of section 145, Cr.P.C. It is obvious that the order dated 16-3-2009 passed by the learned Special Judicial Magistrate was illegal, perverse and not sustainable in the eye of law.
Therefore, the learned Additional Sessions Judge while taking into consideration afore-mentioned vital dimensions has rightly accepted the revision petition against the order dated 16-3-2009 passed by the learned Special Judicial Magistrate, Bahawalpur.
6. For the foregoing discussion and reasons, I do not find any abuse of the process of the court or any other cogent reason to interfere in the impugned order dated 5-5-2009 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. There is no merit in this petition to invoke the inherent power of this Court in terms of section 561-A, Cr.P.C., therefore, it is dismissed.