1. ' AMER RAZA NAQVI, J.---Exemption is granted subject to all just exceptions.
2. 2 & 3. Through this Cr. Acq. Appeal appellant has challenged the order dated 2-10-2013 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate X, Karachi Central in Cr. Case No, 5262/2012. This case was registered as a consequence of FIR No, 224/2012 under section 448/34, P.P.C., Police Station Azizabad.
3. ' This FIR was got registered by the appellant and it was alleged in the FIR that respondent No,1 who is daughter-in-law (wife of son of appellant),on account of family dispute locked the door of the flat and building from inside and as a consequence appellant and his son were deprived of entrance in the house. They also expressed fear that respondent No,1/accused may dispose of valuable articles lying in the house. The matter proceeded before the trial Court who examined appellant and thereafter passed impugned order and acquitted the accused who is respondent No,1 in this case.
4. ' Learned counsel submits that although it is correct that accused did not enter the house unauthorizedly as she is still daughter-in-law of appellant but in view of the action complained in the FIR appellant is deprived from entering his house. Learned counsel further submits that trial Court ignored Exh: 3-F which is memo of inspection and has been filed by learned counsel at page No,65. In view of above submissions learned counsel submits that appeal be accepted and learned trial Court should be directed to conclude the trial in accordance with law and give opportunity to the appellant to produce his evidence, before the trial court.
5. ' Learned counsel appearing for respondent No,1 on the other hand submitted that it is mentioned in the FIR itself and also in the statement of the appellant before the trial Court that respondent No,1 is still daughter-in-law of the appellant and this is a family dispute. The property in question was left behind by deceased Maryam who was wife of the appellant and mother of husband of respondent No, 1 . Learned counsel submits that in fact no criminal act has been committed as mention a in the impugned order. He further submits that it is not disputed that respondent No,1 entered the premises lawfully and remained there as wife of one of the legal heirs of deceased who has left behind this property and therefore ingredient of 448, P.P.C. Were not present in the allegation leveled in the FIR and in the charge framed by the trial Court and as such after examination of appellant before the trial Court there was no room left for the trial Judge except to acquit the respondent No,1 under section 249-A, Cr.P.C.
6. ' The learned State counsel has submitted that order of the trial Court is correct in the facts and circumstances of the case and no case is made out for further proceedings before the trial Court.
7. ' I have heard all the learned counsel and have examined the record with their assistance. It is an admitted position that no trespass took place and even at the time of alleged incident respondent No,1 was inside the premises. Moreover from the contents of FIR and the statement of appellant himself it is evident that this is a family dispute and the same has been converted into Criminal proceedings, such approach should not be encouraged by the Courts. On query learned counsel for the appellant submits that accused No,1 is still legally wedded wife of the son of the appellant and no civil proceedings have been filed in respect of the property by the appellant. It appears that relief which can be claimed in the civil proceedings has been attempted to be enforced through criminal proceedings. I do not find any illegality, mis-reading or non-reading of the evidence by the trial courts, therefore in my humble view learned Judicial Magistrate has rightly exercised his power under section 249-A. No interference is required. In such facts and circumstances this Cr. Acquittal appeal is dismissed.