1. ' HASAN FEROZ, J.---The above Criminal Revision Application has been filed by above-named applicant/petitioner (here-in-after referred-to-as applicant) being aggrieved and dis-satisfied with the impugned order dated 3-10-2012 whereby the request made on behalf of applicant to review the order dated 10-8-2012 as regards dismissal of application/complaint No. 35/2012 so filed under sections 3/4 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 was declined and so also Order dated 10- 8-2012 as passed by the learned IVth Additional District and Sessions Judge, Karachi West whereby dismissing the Application/ Complaint under sections 3/4 of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 with observation that now the record is in the name of one Adam son of Ishaque and there is no force in the complaint under sections 3/4 of the Illegal Dispossession Act against the respondents/accused persons and according to applicant the said impugned orders are not sustainable in law and on facts and so also suffers inherent defects and that said impugned order was passed on the wrong report as filed by the S.H.O. Mauripur.
2. In nutshell facts giving rise to the present Criminal Revision Application are that on 30-6-2012 applicant had made appearance before the learned trial Court on the strength of application/complaint filed by him under, sections 3/4 of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 claiming that Plot of land bearing No,66-A measuring 1066 Sq.Yds. Was allotted to him by the authorities of Gothabad Scheme, Karachi West and such Sanad was issued by the office of the Board of Revenue, Government of Sindh and being the sole, absolute and lawful owner of the said plot of land he went to his said plot for making the construction of the house where he noticed the respondents Nos.1 to 6 in possession, occupation of the said plot illegally and unauthorizedly and so he Lodged F. I. R. No, 323/2010 dated 20-5-2010, under sections 147, 148, 506-B, P.P.C. &337 Q & D Ordinance (as substituted by P.P.C.) but to no result and so he made an application to the D.I.G.Karachi for transfer of investigation. Verification of the title documents in respect of the said plot of land was made and Mukhtiarkar Sindh Gothabad, Karachi reported filed his report dated 10-1-2009. The respondents Nos.1 to 6 have illegally, unauthorizedly failed to deliver physical and vacant possession of the said plot of land to him and, on the contrary F.I.R. No,51/2012 Police Station Mauripur, Karachi was lodged with mala fide intention. However, it is pertinent to mention here that in the application/ complaint so filed under sections 3/4 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 no date of alleged dispossession or forcibly occupying the said plot of land was given and the stand as taken by the applicant to the maximum is that he is owner of the said plot and so has made the following prayer:-- 'Under the abovementioned circumstances, most respectfully, it is therefore prayed that this honourable Court may be pleased to entertain the above complaint, the same may please be sent to the respondent Nos. 7 to get the required enquiry conducted hold, the statement of the complaint, respondent Nos.1 to 6 their witnesses may please be got recorded, prepared the inquiry report, submit the same before this honourable Court, then on consideration the facts stated hereinabove as well as in the enquiry report submitted by the police, the above complaint may please be admitted under the provision of sections 3 and 4 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, the non-bailable warrants of arrest may please be issued against the respondents Nos.1 to 7 and then they may please be dealt with in accordance with the law, they may be convicted and the physical, vacant possession of the above-said plot of land be, got delivered, handed over to the complainant above-named, the above complaint may please be allowed and/or pass any such other order, orders as this honourable Court may deem think fit and proper, in view of the circumstances of the case'.
2. ' The learned trial Court had called the report from the S.H.O. Of the Police Station concerned as required under section 5 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 and pursuant thereto it had considered the application/complaint for taking cognizance of the case under subsection (2) of section 5 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 and impugned order dated 10-8-2012 was passed in the manner as aforesaid whereby the said application/ complaint was dismissed. Applicant/ Complainant being aggrieved moved an application with a prayer to review the order dated 10-8- 2012 and said application too was dismissed vide impugned order dated 3-10-2012 and hence this revision application.
3. ' Mr. Samsam Ali Raza, learned counsel for Applicant/Petitioner mainly contended that the impugned order is illegal, without jurisdiction, beyond the facts and the same has been passed on the wrong report filed by the S.H.O. Mauripur. That S.H.O. Mauripur has totally failed to produce any witness to corroborate the documents appended before the trial Court. Learned counsel further contended that the imptigned order has been passed on the wrong, incorrect and irrelevant report so filed by the Mukhtiarkar and the learned trial Court had passed non-speaking impugned order dated 10-8-2012 and the learned IVth Additional Sessions Judge had failed to conduct proper trial and without any witness initiating trial of the case passed impugned order in hasty manner and so also the learned trial Court had failed even to appreciate the documents and so according to him the impugned order merits to be set aside and he has also contended that dismissal of the application moved for review of impugned order dated 10-8-2012 was also erroneously dismissed and so he has prayed to allow the revision application in hand.
4. ' Mr. Khadim Hussain learned D.P.G. Appearing on behalf of the State, however, has opposed the revision application and he has contended that the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 being a special law, the procedure to entertain the application/complaint under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 has been provided in section 5 of the said Act to which provides that on receipt of a complaint the court may direct the officer-in-charge of a police station to investigate and forward the result of investigation to the court within fifteen days and cognizance is to be taken by the court on receipt thereof, He has further contended that being special law the trial of an accused under the said Act cannot be equated as trial in a complaint case under section 190, Cr.P.C. And the court under section 5 of the said Act may order the Incharge of Police Station to investigate the matter and report and the court it was for the trial Court to have applied its mind upon receipt of the investigation report, would apply its mind whether to further proceed or not with the matter under section 5(2) of the said Act, which procedure according to him was followed by the learned trial Court and since as per report so received the learned trial Court had formed opinion that application/complaint under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 was not made out, it had rightly dismissed the same vide impugned order dated 10-8-2012, so also to him the impugned order dated 10-2012 is also within the four corners of the law and there is no illegality or irregularity in the impugned order and he has prayed to dismiss the revision application.
5. ' I have heard the learned counsel at length and have consulted the law on the subject, so also minutely examined the impugned orders and I am of the view that provision of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 being a special law is only applicable-in cases wherein the person complained against was found to be not having title thereto, second that he has taken possession by use of force, thirdly that he had taken over the property without due course of law and fourthly that such person or persons belonged to group of land grabbers. Further Application/Complaint under this Act, 2005 can only be entertained if there is prima facie material against nominated accused and to my view civil nature dispute in no way can be allowed to be converted into criminal offence and if such practice is allowed the same would amount to misuse of provisions of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. Further provision of section 3 is applicable only to land grabbers.
6. Further for the purposes of determination so as to appreciate as to whether case has been made- out attracting the provisions of section 3 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 the court was required to examine, firstly that the property was immovable property, secondly that the person was the owner of the property or same was in his lawful possession, thirdly that the accused entered into or upon property unlawfully and fourthly that such entry was with the intention to dispossess. Very fact that power of taking cognizance in respect of offence falling under the provisions of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 had been exclusively devolved upon the Court of Session had negated the application of section 190, Cr.P.C. And in view of specific and exclusive mandate of the Court of Session to take cognizance and try the offences punishable under Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 the use of the Magisterial Courts as a post office, could not be attributed to the wisdom of legislature. The word 'complaint' is defined in S.4 Clause (h) of Code of Criminal Procedure, it is a statement of accusation or allegation of fact or information put forth to a complainant inferring commission of offence to be taken cognizance of. A complaint is just a statement of allegation to set the law in motion, and failure to furnish details of the occurrence cannot by itself means that what is stated at the trial subsequently is false or baseless. No specific form is prescribed in law so as to put in motion the Criminal Law through a complaint. The procedure before the court as to the cognizance of complaint would be the same as provided in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The essential requirement of section 200, Cr.P.C. Is that the substance of the complaint shall be reduced to writing and shall be signed by the complainant.
7. Section 200, Cr.P.C. Makes it clear that the examination of the complainant can only succeed and not precede the taking of cognizance, for, it is an act to be done after the taking of cognizance; whatever might be meaning of the word cognizance or whatever might amount to taking cognizance and my this view is supported by the dictum reported as PLD 1960 Dacca p.631 and even there is no requirement of law that the court on receipt of a direct complaint must hold preliminary inquiry. If a prima facie case is made out, court can take cognizance of the same after examination of the complainant on Oath and if no such case is made-out, Court is competent to dismiss the same (2001 PCr.LJ p.914). As mentioned supra section 4 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 provides that cognizance was to be taken directly by the Sessions Court on a complaint, therefore there was no need to comply with the procedure laid down in section 190, Cr.P.C. By making complaint before Magistrate directly, who after entertaining the same was required to transmit the same to the Court of Sessions. Further I am of the view that when section 193, Cr.P.C.
8. Itself provides direct cognizance for a complaint, it could not create hurdle in the way of Sessions Court for taking cognizance. A private complaint could be dismissed at preliminary stage under sections 203 & 204(3) Cr.P.C. Accused could also be acquitted and private complaint can be dismissed by the Sessions Court at any stage of the trial under section 265-K and section 265-H(1)
9. Cr.P.C. As regards the contention of the learned counsel for the applicant as to noncompliance of section 200 & 202 Cr.P.C. I may refer to the dictum as reported in PLD 2006 Karachi p.221 & 2007 PCr.LJ p.891 wherein it was settled that provision of section 200, Cr.P.C. In no manner bind the court to record the evidence of complainant despite the fact that the accusations made in the complaint does not constitute an offence or the act complained of was not an offence at the time of occurrence. Section 5 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, itself had given discretion to the court to satisfy itself as to the competence and maintainability of the complaint. Provisions of section 202, Cr.P.C. Are enabling provisions and not obligatory. Court is competent to dismiss the complaint under section 203, Cr.P.C. If no sufficient grounds are available for proceeding by briefly recording the reason for doing so. Issuance of summons or notice to the accused before issuing process by the court holding such inquiry would not vitiate the proceeding as the same being a mere irregularity is curable under section 537, Cr.P.C. The provision of section 5(1) are broader in a sense that it empower the court to have the matter investigated for any purpose as may relate to the complaint and be germane or relevant under the 2005 Act. Further section 202, Cr.P.C. And section 5(1) of the 2005 Act, are to be considered and read together, the legislature's intent behind the later provision is clear and unambiguous.
10. ' Perusal of the impugned, order dated 10-8-2012 reveals that the S.H.O. Pursuant to the investigation reported that the disputed plot is in possession of Ghulam Hussain son of Yaqoob, the said plot was disposed of by the applicant 10 years back and the said report of the S.H.O./Police since was strengthened by the report of the Mukhtiarkar Sindh Gothabad who had also confirmed that the applicant is not owner of the said plot as per their record. At this juncture it will be of some benefit to refer to the dictum as appeared in 2011 PCr.LJ Lahore p.487 wherein it was held that "After going through the complaint and perusal of the record it is clear that the complainant has not given any material particulars of the alleged act of dispossession. It was essential for the complainant to give all the material particulars with regard to act of Illegal Dispossession in the complaint itself. In 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 dispossessed in terms of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. That the complainant lodged an F.I.R. Bearing No, 168 of 2010 dated 13-4-2010 at Police Station Peoples Colony, District Gufranwala 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 respect 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 2007 Lahore 231). Disputes between rival parties over possession or title of immovable property have been there since time immemorial. There are various remedies available to a person who claims that he has been illegally dispossessed from immovable property both on the civil and criminal side. A new class of persons has 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 grabbers and is notorious for grabbing property as and when an opportunity presents itself. In this case there is not an iota of 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".
11. In the result, to my view the learned trial Court was justified in passing the impugned order dated 10-8-2012 since no cognizance of the matter can be taken pursuant to the investigation report by the Incharge of the Police Station and the present applicant in such circumstances having nis grievance as to right and title to possess then he has to approach to the court of competent jurisdiction in appropriate manner where the controversy as to the number of the plot of land whether it was 66 or 66-A and measurement thereof would also be determined and to my view the impugned order dated 3-10-2012 was right passed since there was no scope left to resort to review as the very application/complaint under sections 3/4 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 had already been dismissed by the learned trial Court in the manner as aforesaid, therefore, the present revision application preferred by above-. Named applicant as against the captioned impugned orders bears no force under the law, '2005-Act', which is hereby dismissed.