I propose to dispose of above two matters by this common judgment, as both these matters more or less on the same grounds, have challenged the proceedings initiated under section 145, Cr. P. C.
In the Court of A. C. & S. D. M., Liaquatabad, Karachi, in respect of same land and orders dated 18th April, 1981 passed under section 145(4), Cr. P. C., in the said proceedings, on the ground, that the said proceedings amount to abuse of the process of the learned trial Court, as disputes between the parties is of civil nature, in respect of which two civil suits Nos. 1586/81 and 2573/81 are pending between the parties, in competent Court, in which competent civil Court on 16th April, 1981 has ordered status quo.
2. Petitioner in Cr. Miscellaneous Appeal No. 391/81 has challenged order dated 18th April, 1981 of A.
C. & S. D. M., Liaquata--bad, on report of S. H. O. North Nazimabad Police Station, Karachi, under section 145(4), Cr. P. C., by which petitioner alleges, that her plot No. A/99 has been illegally sealed, which amounts to abuse of the process of the learned trial Court, on the grounds mentioned in the said petition. Similarly petitioner in Cr. Miscellaneous No. 836/81 has also challenged the same order dated 18th April, 1981 of A. C. & S. D. M., Liaquatabad, on report of S. .H O. North Nazimabad Police Station, Karachi, under section 145(4), Cr. P. C. By which petitioner alleges, that his Plot No. A/98 has been illegally sealed, which amounts to abuse of the process of the learned trial Court, on the grounds mentioned in the said petition.
3. Both the petitioners in their respective petitions have alleged, that their respective Plot Nos. A/99 & A/98 have been sealed, under order dated 18th Aprii, 1981 of the learned A. C. & S. D. M., Liaquatabad passed under section 145(4), Cr. P. C., in proceedings initiated on the report of S. H. O.
North Nazimabad Police Station, in respect of plot No. 14/51 Block `B', North Nazimabad Moula Goth, Karachi, though there is nothing in the said report of S. H. O. And/or on record that petitioners' Plots Nos. A/99 and A/98 are the part and parcel of plot No. 14/51 in- question. Petitioners have further urged, that the entire proceeding under section 145, Cr. P. C. Initiated on the report dated 18th April, 1981 of S. H. O. North Nazimabad Police Station amount to abuse of the process of the said learned Court, on the grounds mentioned in their respective petitions.
4. The learned Advocate for petitioners in support of above petitions submitted as under:-
(a) That it is clear from report dated 18th April, 1981 of S. H. O. North Nazimabad, that alleged dispute between respondents related to Plot No. 14/51 Block `B', North Nazimabad, Moula Goth, whereas Plots Nos. A/98 and A/99, which have been purchased by petitioners and have nothing to do with alleged dispute between the respondents, in respect of Plot No. 14/51, have been attached and sealed.
(b) That admittedly there is a civil dispute between respondents in respect of land in question and consequently two civil suits Nos. 1-586/81 and 2573/81 are pending between the parties in Civil Court, in which status quo orders have been passed by the learned Civil Court on 16th April, 1981 prior to initiation of proceedings under section 145, Cr. P: C. And passing of orders under section 145(4), Cr. P. C. For sealing of the plot in question and as such initiating of the said proceedings and order of attachment are incompetent and liable to be quashed by this Court., In support of this contention, the learned Advocate for the petitioners relied upon cases reported in 1980 NLR 23, PLD 1970 SC 470, 1978 P Cr. L 1431, 731 and 76 and 1975 P Cr. L J 7.
5. The learned Advocate for respondent No. 2 fully supported the above contentions of the learned Advocate for the petitioners and further relied upon case reported in 1976 P Cr. L J 464.
6. The learned Advocate appearing for the State has also supported the contentions of the learned Advocate for the petitioners and relied upon cases reported in 1976 P Cr. L J 14 and 102 and 1974 P Cr. L J 460.
7. The learned Advocate for respondent No. 1, on the other hand submitted, that proceedings under section 145, Cr. P. C. And orders dated 18th April, 1981 under section 145(4), Cr. P. C. Are correct and legal and orders passed by Civil Court in Suits Nos. 1586/81 and. 2573/81 would not affect the sail proceedings and/or order dated 18th April, 1981 under section 145(4), Cr. P. C. In support of this contention of his the learned Advocate for the respondent No. 1 relied upon the cases reported in PLD 1974 Note 47 at p. 83, PLD 1974 Kar. 124, PLD 1971 SC 426.(7), PLD 1977 SC 384, 1980 P Cr. L J 588 and PLD 1.980 Azad J & X 17.
8. I have carefully considered the above submissions made by the learned counsel before me and have gone through the various authorities cited by the learned counsel.
9. Police report dated 18th April, 1981 and orders passed by learned A. C. & S. D. M., Liaquatabad, which are on record clearly show that the proceedings and attachment related to Plot No. 14/15 Block 'B' North Nazimabad, Moula Goth but the area of said plot is not given at all. Consequently sealing of Plots Nos. A/98 and A/99, belonging to the peti--tioners in pursuance of the said order of attachment under section 145. (A) Cr. P. C. Prima facte cannot be considered to be in pursuance of said order, as there is nothing in the said order even to suggest, that plot No 14/51, is one big plot and consists of various similar plots etc. In view of this factual position on record and in the absence of assertion from respondent No. 1. That Plots Nos. A/99 & A/98 claimed by the petitioners as owners are part and parcel of Plot No. 14/51, I agree with the contention of the learned Advocate for the petitioners, that sealing of plots Nos. A/99 and A/98 in pursuance of impugn order dated 18th April, 1981 under section 145 (4), Cr. P. C. Of A. C. & S. D. M., Liaquatabad, photo copy of which is at page 23 of the above petition amounts to abuse of the process of the learned trial Court.
10. The second contention of the learned Advocate for the petitioners that in view of status quo order dated 16th April, 1981 in respect of very Plot No. 14/51, passed by competent civil Court in Suits Nos. 1586/81 and 2573/81 pending between the parties, which fact has not been disputed even by the learned Advocate for respondent No. 1, before me initiating of proceedings on 18th April, 1981 under section 145, Cr. P. C. In the Court of A. C. & S. D. M., Liaquatabad and passing of order under section 145 (4), Cr. P. C. By him, without holding any inquiry, on the Police report only, on the basis of alleged threatened breach of pence between the parties, amounts to abuse of the process of the learned trial Court and as such the said entire proceedings and/or order dated 18th April, 1981 under section 145 (4), Cr. P. C. Is liable to be quashed, has great force, in my opinion. It is admitted position, that status quo order was passed by competent civil Court on 16th April, 1981, before initiating of proceedings under section 145, Cr. P. C. And passing of order under section 145 (4), Cr. P.
C. Further it is also admitted position, that learned A. C. And S. D. M., Liaquatabad did not hold any inquiry, before passing orders under section 145 (4), Cr. P. C. And consequently there was nothing before the learned S. D. M. To come to conclusion, about alleged threat of breach of peace between the parties, except Police report, which too is vague in this connection, and as such in my opinion, passing of order .Under section 145 (4), Cr. P. C. Under the circumstances was not at all warranted by law and consequently passing of said order under section 145 (4), Cr. P. C. On the basis of Police report in question, amounted to abuse of the process of the learned Court, in my opinion.
11. Obviously the dispute between the parties is civil dispute in respect of ownership of the land in question, in respect of which parties have already moved the competent civil Court by means of Suits Nos. 1586/81 and 2573/81, for determination of said disputes inter se. It is also admitted position, that competent civil Court has issued status quo order dated 16th April, 1981 in the said suits and as such interest of all the parties have been fully safeguarded by said order. It is also admitted position, that civil dispute between the parties cannot be resolved by pro--ceedings under section 145, Cr. P. C. In the present case at all, as no physical dispossession within 60 days of the initiating of proceedings is alleged by any party, from the land in question. In view of all these circumstances continuance of these proceedings under section 145, Cr. P. C. Would amount to unnecessary harassm ent to all the parties and in my opinion amounts to abuse of the process of the learned trial Court. In case of real threat of breach of peace between the parties, in spite of status quo orders of competent civil Court, can be dealt with effectively under section 107/117, Cr. P.
C. By Police, if and when such situation at all arises.
12, Therefore, in view of my above conclusions and findings, I allow both above petitions and quash the entire proceedings pending under section 145, Cr. P. C. In the Court of A. C. And S. D. M., Liaquatabad, Karachi in respect of Plot No. 14/51, Block `B', North Nazimabad, Moula Gouth, Karachi as well as order dated 18th April, 1981 passed under section 145 (4), Cr. P. C. In the said proceedings.