1. The appellant has filed this Intra Court Appeal against judgment dated 3.4.2014 passed by the learned Single Judge-inChamber whereby Writ Petition No, 2113/2013 filed by the appellant was dismissed.
2. 2.Brief facts of the case are that a private complaint under the provisions of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 was filed by the appellant against Respondent No, 3 alleging therein that on 16.4.2011 at about 7.00 AM the said respondent aided by two persons illegally occupied 10-marlas plot owned by the appellant, which was situated adjacent to the plot owned by the wife of Respondent No, 3.
3. The appellant produced cursory evidence, whereafter the Respondent No; 3 was summoned to face trial and was even charge sheeted and the complaint was fixed for leading prosecution/appellant evidence, when at this stage the Respondent No, 3 filed an application under Section 265-K of Cr.P.C. which was accepted by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Multan vide judgment dated 28.1.2013. The.- appellant impugned said judgment before this Court through Writ Petition No, 2113/2013, which was however dismissed by the learned Single Judge-in-Chamber.
4. Hence, this Intra Court Appeal.
5. 3.Arguing the ICA, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that learned Additional Sessions Judge, Multan while accepting the application under Section 265-K of Cr.P.C. was mainly influenced by a fact that in respect of dispute of plot in question a civil suit, filed prior to the institution of the complaint, was pending and it was unduly observed that complaint was filed to pressurize the Respondent No,
3. Further argued that the learned Single Judge-inChamber while dismissing the writ petition was also inspired by the same factor and relied on a case of Habib Ullah and others us. Abdul Manan and others decided by the apex Court (2012 SCM R 1533), whereas the dictum of law propounded in the said case stands revised through a latest judgment of larger Bench of august Supreme Court of Pakistan titled "Shaikh Muhammad Naseem VS Mst.
6. Farida -Gul" (2016 SCM R 1931). Thus prayed for allowing the ICA.
7. 4.Inspite of issuance of notice to Respondent No, 3 and affixation, he has not turned up to contest the Intra Court Appeal, while the learned Assistant Advocate General representing the State has not disputed the latest view of august Supreme Court of Pakistan expressed through the ruling relied by the learned counsel for the appellant.
8. 5.We have considered the arguments advanced before Us and perused the record. On perusal of judgment dated 28.1.2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Multan, whereby the application under Section 265-K of Cr.P.C. was accepted and the impugned judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge-in-Chamber, it is indeed found that both the said learned Courts were mainly influenced about the pendency of civil litigation in respect of the plot in. question and the learned Single Judge-in-Chamber chiefly relying on 2012 SCM R 1533 dismissed the writ petition. As mentioned earlier, the view previously adopted by the august Supreme Court of Pakistan through the above referred judgment has been revised by a larger Bench of august Supreme Court of Pakistan through judgment reported in 2016 SCM R 1931. Some relevant portions of this judgment addressing the main issues of ICA before us need to be reproduced for better understanding: "Any act which entails civil liability under civil law as well as criminal penalty under criminal law, such as the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 then a person can be tried under but t kinds of proceedings, which are independent of each other. Once the offence reported in the complaint stands proved against the accused within the confines of the provisions of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 then he 'cannot escape punishment on the ground that some civil himation on the, same issue is pending adjudication between the parties.
9. It is evident from the provisions of Section 3 of the Illegal Dis possessions Act, 2005 that it describes the offence exhaustively but does not describe the offenders in specific terms. On the contrary, it uses the general terms `no one' and 'whoever' for the offenders. The use of such general terms clearly indicates that the widest possible meaning was attributed to the offenders. The three member bench of this Court in Bashir Ahmed's case supra however has held that under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 only those can be prosecuted who possess the credentials and antecedents of `land grabbers' or `Qabza Group' and none else. In reaching such conclusion, Bashir Ahmed's case adopted reasoning contained in the judgment of the Lahore High Court in the case of Zahoor Ahmed v. The State (PLD 2007 Lahore 231). The first reason that prevailed with the Lahore High Court in Zahoor Ahmed's case was the use of the term ' property grabbers' in the preamble of the Act, which was made basis to restrict its scope and applicability. We may state that the term 'properly grabbers' is not one of those terms that is popularly associated with any particular class of offenders such as the terms, 'Land grabbers', `Qabza Mafia' or `Qabza Group'. In fact none of the popular terms which are identified with a specific category of offenders have been used anywhere in the Act. As the term 'property grabbers' appearing in the preamble of the Act has been used in general sense, it cannot be identified with any particular category of offenders in order to restrict the scope and applicability of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 to a particular category of offenders. Additionally, the substantive provision of Illegal Dispossession Act i,e, Section 3 expressly uses general terms such as 'no one' and `whoever' for the offender. This clearly indicates that the widest possible meaning is to be attributed to these terms. Thus the provisions of. Section 3 clearly demonstrate that whosoever commits the act of illegal dispossession, as described in the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 against a lawful owner or a lawful occupier, he can be prosecuted under its provisions without any restriction".
3. In view of the ratio of the above judgment, order dated 3.04.2014 passed by learned Single Judge in Chamber is not sustainable in the eye of law. We, therefore, allow the. Intra Court Appeal and set aside order dated 3.4.2014 with the result that the complaint filed by the appellant shall be deemed to be pending before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Multan, for disposal afresh in accordance with law indeed after proper remaining trial.