' MIAN FASIH-UL-MULK, J.--- Petitioner, Mst. Taraja Begum has assailed the order dated 17-3-2010 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Tangi, whereby her complaint against respondents Nos.1 to 4 under sections 3/4 Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 was rejected. She has prayed that the same be declared to have been passed without lawful authority and of no legal effect.
2. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner instituted a complaint under sections 3/4 of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Tangi against respondents Nos.1 to 4, wherein it was stated that she being put in possession of the disputed property in execution proceedings by the Revenue Authorities was illegally dispossessed by the respondents on 19-12-2009 at 9-00 a.m. The complaint was sent to the local police for inquiry. The inquiry conducted by the SHO of the concerned Police Station affirmed the allegation of complainant.
However, the trial Judge while placing reliance on the report of Girdawar Circle dismissed the complaint without any further proceedings.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record appended with the petition.
4. Section 3 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 is reproduced below for ease of reference:--- "(3) Prevention of illegal possession of property etc.--- (1) No one shall enter into or upon any property to dispossess, grab, control or occupy it without having any lawful authority to do so with the intention to dispossess, grab, control or occupy the property from owners or occupier of such property."
(2) Whoever contravenes the provisions of the subsection (1) shall, without prejudice to any punishment to which he may be liable under any other law for the time being in force, be punishable with imprisonment which may extend to ten years and with fine and the victim of the offence shall also be compensated in accordance with the provision of section 544-A of the Code.
"
' Section 4 stipulates that any "contravention of section 3 shall be triable by the Court of Session on a complaint". It also provides that the offence under the Act shall be non- cognizable. Section 5 empowers the Court to direct the police to make investigation. It is thus clear from section 3 ibid that in order to constitute an offence thereunder the complaint must disclose the existence of an unlawful act and criminal intent. The purpose of investigation under section 5 of the Act ibid is to ascertain prima facie, the authenticity of what has been stated in the complaint. The complaint itself has to show that an offence cognizable by the Court has been committed by the accused person(s) named therein. In the present case, from the order of the learned trial Court dated 15-7- 2009 it is obvious that the matter was sent to the police as the complaint itself was disclosing the commission of a criminal act by the respondents. In view of the above, the trial Court was required to have taken cognizance of the matter. Perusal of record would reveal that the complaint of petitioner has been summarily dismissed by the trial Court in violation of the provisions of Illegal Dispossession Act when the inquiry report and the statement of witnesses recorded by the SHO of the concerned Police Station were in favour of complainant/petitioner. The complaint, tinder the provisions of the Illegal Dispossession Act, cannot be dismissed at the threshold, as the Court, after conclusion of the trial, has to record either acquittal or conviction of the accused. We have gone through the impugned order as well as the record appended with the petition and find that the trial Court while rejecting the complaint summarily without recording evidence has erred in law and the impugned order is, therefore, not sustainable in the eyes of law.
5. Consequently, this petition is accepted, the impugned order of the trial Court is set aside and the matter is remanded to the trial Court for proceeding with the complaint of petitioner in accordance with law.