Through instant quashment petition, the petitioner has called in question the order dated 9.1.2019 of learned Sessions Judge, Bannu, whereby revision petition of respondents was accepted and set aside the order dated 22.10.218 of learned Judicial Magistrate, Bannu, consequently complainant of petitioner was dismissed.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner submitted an application regarding her forcible dispossession by respondents from the house to the District Police Officer, Bannu, who after inquiry submitted complaint under Section 145 Cr.PC to the learned Judicial Magistrate-III, Bannu. The responden ts submitted written replication wherein they alleged that civil suit for partition between the parties is pending adjudication, hence, the complaint is not maintainable, while learned trial Court held that the complaint is maintainable, as there is apprehension of breach of peace, vide order dated 22.10.2018. The respondents being dissatisfied with the order dated 22.10.2018, preferred revision petition. The learned revisional Court, vide impugned order , held that the complaint under Section 145 Cr .PC was not maintainable. Hence, the instant writ petition.
3. Arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner heard in motion and record perused.
4. Perusal of the record reveals that matter in issue was subjudice before the learned Civil Judge-XIII, Bannu in civil suit No.412/1 instituted by Responde nt No.3 on 06.01.2017, but was withdrawn on 28.07.2018. Proceedings under Section 145 Cr.PC are meant to avoid breach of peace and in no way amounts to be decided after discussing a title dispute or a dispute of restoration of possession. Provision of Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act or Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 are specifically meant to cater for such like eventualities that could not be made redundant. Section 145 Cr.PC lays down that complaint is to be represented with proof of dispossession within two months of filing of complaint, but instant application of petitioner submitted to the District Police Officer, Bannu does not reveal any specific date or period, but merely bald allegation of dispossession. Moreover , petitioner and respondents are sisters and brothers interse and no doubt that former might have claimed to share in disputed property , but the same could not be adjudicated upon under Section 145 Cr.PC that has got a very limited scope and infringement of private right or dispossession of any of the parties or existence of dispute relating to immovable property is per se not enough to attract provision of Section 145 Cr.PC. It is only meant to meet an emergent situation posing threat to peace and could, not be used for settling right of the parties or their claim to title. Import of sub Section 5 makes it clear and there is no breach of peace then a Magistrate has got no jurisdiction to make order regarding subject of dispute. Refer ence in this regard is made to a judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan reported as PLD 1985 Supreme Court 294.
5. The learned revisional Court has rightly appreciated the facts and circumstances of the case and arrived at right conclusion, which order is not open to interference under Section 561-A Cr.PC. This petition being devoid of merits, dismissed in limine.