1. ' AFTAB AHMED GORAR, J.---Through this Criminal Miscellaneous Application filed under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. Read with section 339, Cr.P.C. The applicant Muhammad Yousuf ur Rahman Saddiqui has impugned the orders dated 7-5-2012, 12-6-2012, 25-1-2012, 4-1-2012, 6-2-2002, 8-2-2002, 4-3- 2002, 6-7-2009, 11-11-2003 and 10-11-2009.
2. ' Briefly, the case of the petitioner is that he entered into a verbal agreement with respondent No,1 for construction of ground plus one floor on Plots Nos.31, 32 and 33, Jamshed Road No,3, Karachi, however respondent No,1 in disregard of such agreement, constructed a rough concrete structure of 19 shops and Mezzanine in the name of Al-Habib Centre whereupon petitioner cancelled the agreement. However, despite that respondent No,1 sold out said shops and mezzanine through a fake transaction and executed 17 sub-leases and in order to take possession of said shops and mezzanine, on the basis of a baseless report of the police, got order dated 8-12-2002 from IXth Judicial Magistrate, Karachi East in the proceedings under section 145, Cr.P.C. For sealing of the premises in question. Applicant filed an application for de-sealing the property but the same was dismissed vide order dated 4-3-2002 which order and the order of sealing dated 8-2-2002 were challenged in Criminal Revision Application No,15 of 2002 which was also dismissed vide order dated 11-11-2003. On 6-7-2009 proceedings under section 145, Cr.P.C. Were disposed of concluding that the matter was that of civil nature and parties to get the matter decided by the civil court.
3. Order dated 6-7-2009 was challenged in Criminal Revision Application No, 42 of 2000 but the same was also dismissed by IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi East. Thereafter applicant filed Civil Suit No,807 of 2012 which is still pending . Besides sub-lessees/owners of shops had also filed Civil Suit No, 1357 of 2002 against the applicant and others. Besides, applicant moved Criminal Revision Application No,44 of 2012 but the same was withdrawn on the ground of jurisdiction.
4. ' Vide order dated 15-8-2012 passed by this court learned counsel for the applicant was required to satisfy as to the maintainability as well as limitation/latches on the part of the applicant. Notices were issued to learned Prosecutor-General for hearing on the point of limitation and maintainability. Notices were also issued to respondents Nos.1 and 2 and accordingly they have put their appearance through respective advocates.
5. ' Learned counsel for the applicant contended that the impugned orders being void ab initio, neither any period of limitation would run for challenging such orders nor latches would come in the way. He also contended that remedy of Revision Application under section 439-A, Cr.P.C. Earlier availed in the lower forum is no bar for invoking provisions of section 561-A, Cr.P.C. He also contended that the Magistrate in the proceedings under section 145, Cr.P.C. Ought to have decided as to who was in the physical possession of the disputed property which was not done in the present case. He relied upon the case-law reported in 1994 Cr.LJ 2153, 2007 SCM R 834, PLD 1994 Karachi 143, 2007 SCM R 729, 2007 SCM R 262, 1996 PCr.LJ 560, 1996 PCr.LJ 444 and 1990 M LD 134.
6. ' Conversely learned counsel for respondents Nos.1 and 2 contended that Criminal Miscellaneous Application is not maintainable as the applicant has already availed the remedy available under the law by way of Revision Applications, Civil Suit and Constitutional Petition and, in fact Civil Suit No,807 of 2012 and C.P. No,D-1203 of 2011 in respect of same transaction are still pending. He also contended that the orders impugned in the instant Criminal Miscellaneous Application cannot be termed as "Void", as such the case-law relied upon by the applicant's counsel is not applicable. He prayed for dismissal of the Application.
7. ' Learned A.P.G. Representing official respondents while adopting the arguments of the respondents' counsel, opposed the Criminal Miscellaneous Application and prayed for its dismissal being not maintainable and barred by limitation.
8. ' I have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on the record.
9. It appears that applicant has been challenging the orders which A are impugned in this Criminal Miscellaneous Application which all were decided against him and having exhausted all the remedies, now he has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. The applicant has himself admitted that he has challenged all the orders which have been impugned by him in this Application and civil suit filed by the applicant in relation to the same transaction is still pending. Furthermore, the applicant has also filed a constitutional petition being C.P. No,D-1203 of 2011 which is also pending in this Court. Needless to emphasis that inherent jurisdiction conferred upon High Court pursuant to the provisions of section 561-A, Cr.P.C. Is neither alternative nor additional in its character and it is to be rarely invoked only in the interest of justice so as to seek redress of grievance for which no other procedure is available. Provision of this section cannot not be used to obstruct or divert the ordinary course of criminal procedure. If any authority is needed, reference can be made to PLD 2007 SC 189.
10. ' Moreover, Criminal Miscellaneous Application also suffers from latches as after several years having availed all the remedies out of which some are still pending, the applicant has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court which is not permissible under the law. The contention of the learned counsel for the applicant that as the impugned orders are "void" therefore no period of limitation would run for challenging the same or that latches would not come in its way is also devoid of force as by no stretch of imagination the impugned orders could be termed as "void".
11. Needless to say that every illegal order cannot be said to be "void order", however every void order would certainly be termed as "illegal order". According to Black's Law Dictionary "void" means null, ineffectual, nugatory, having no legal force or binding effect, unable in I E law. In the instant case the Magistrate was fully competent under the law to pass the impugned orders, merely any irregularity, if any, would not bring the same within the ambit of "void order". In this view of the matter, Criminal Miscellaneous Application also suffers from laches.
12. Apparently, the matter is of civil nature for which the applicant has already availed the remedy of filing civil suit which is still pending, besides C.P. No,D-1203 of 2011.
13. ' The upshot of above discussion is that the Criminal Miscellaneous Application being not maintainable is liable to be dismissed in limin.