' SHAHNAWAZ TARIQ, J.---Through instant criminal acquittal appeal, appellant has impugned the order dated 15.6.2015, passed by the Court of learned IInd Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate, Sukkur, whereby respondents/accused were acquitted from the charge under Section 249-A, Cr.P.C.
2. Relevant facts spelt out from instant appeal are that appellant lodged FIR No,06 of 2015, under Sections 506/2, 447, 448 and 34, P.P.C., stating that he is owner of Shop No,B-950-1-1, situated at Sir Adam Jee Road, Sukkur, which was purchased by him from his brother namely Muhammad Usman. On 24.08.2014, allegedly Abdul Hameed and Muhammad Faisal illegally got possession of said shop from appellant and he filed direct complaint under Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, before the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Sukkur, which is pending adjudication. On 11.01.2015, appellant along with his son namely Abdul Basit and friend Mujeebur Rehman Ansari was standing outside of his shop, while at about 1530 hours, accused Abdul Hameed, Ziaul Haq and Muhammad Faisal in collusion with an unidentified accused armed with pistols and sticks, quarreled with complainant's son by causing him kicks and fist blows and warned them that if applicant would not withdraw his case, they would commit the murder of complainant, whereupon complainant party beseeched them and they fled away; hence instant FIR.
3. Learned counsel for appellant contended that learned trial Court did not appreciate the material facts of the case, as such impugned order is not sustainable in law; that trial Court erred in acquitting the accused by brushing aside the evidence adduced by prosecution as such impugned order is based on assumption and presumption as motive behind the instant case is available as the parties are already disputed over the possession of shop in question; that offence under Section 506/2 is a criminal intimidation, which requires evidence to thresh out the truth; but trial Court without recording evidence of PWs, considered the application under Section 249-A, Cr.P.C. Filed by the respondents; that trial Court while passing the order has discussed the civil litigation pending before the civil Court which has no relevancy with the present case.
4. Perusal of material available on ecord and consideration of the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellant reflect that appellant lodged FIR under Sections 506/2, 447, 448 and 34, P.P.C. And after completion of investigation, Investigating Officer submitted Challan before the Court of learned III-Civil Judge And Judicial Magistrate, Sukkur. Subsequently, respondents filed application under Section 249-A, Cr.P.C. On the ground that they are innocent and have been falsely involved in the case due to enmity over the property as matter is purely of civil nature and respondent No,1, Abdul Hameed is a tenant of shop bearing C.S. No,B- 649, situated at Sir Adam Jee Road, Sukkur, on monthly rent of Rs,15,500/- owned by one Haji Muhammad Usman, brother of appellant, for more than a decade, and he being a tenant of said shop has paid the rent regularly to landlord up to June, 2014, but later on said Usman refused to receive the rent and pressurized him to vacate the shop in question, thereafter, respondent No,1 filed application under Section 10(3) of S.R.P.O. 1979, before the Court of 1st Rent Controller, Sukkur, and he was allowed to deposit the agreed rent with Nazir of the Court and since then he is regularly depositing his monthly rent in Court.
5. It has further transpired that complainant being a real brother of said Usman came forward and lodged the FIR with sole purpose to compel respondent No,1 to vacate the shop in dispute while he has already filed a criminal complaint, and respondent No,1 has filed F.C. Suit No,20 of 2015, for declaration and permanent Injunction, Re: Abdul Hameed v. Haji Usman and others before the Court of 1st Senior Civil Judge, Sukkur, which is pending adjudication.
6. Indeed, parties are disputed over the shop in question and appellant has concealed the entire material facts in his FIR except the allegations of causing harassment as well as causing kicks and fist blows to his son; however, neither such allegations have been supported by medical evidence nor any independent witnesses. It is well settled that the Magistrate is empowered to dispose of any criminal case under Section 249-A, Cr.P.C. After hearing the prosecutor and minute examination of entire material of prosecution case i,e, FIR, statements of witnesses recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C., mashirnamas and other available material, judiciously, and if the Court comes to the conclusion that there is no possibility of accused being convicted for the alleged offence, Court should exercise its powers as envisaged under section 249-A, Cr.P.C. To save its time by avoiding the said futile exercise.
7. Perusal of the entire material available on record emanate that appellant has malafidely twisted the material facts, which is tainted with malice and there is no probability of accused being convicted and further trial of the case would be a futile exercise and wastage of precious time of the Court. Admittedly, appellant has already filed a direct complaint under the provisions of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, against respondent No,1 which is still sub-judice before the competent Court and with ulterior motives, he has also lodged instant FIR only to compel the respondents to vacate the shop in question. Bare reading of the impugned order reflects that learned Magistrate while passing impugned order, has not committed any illegality or irregularity, as such the same does not call for any interference. Consequently, instant acquittal appeal being devoid of merits stands dismissed in limine. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.