Applicants above-named have filed the above petition for Quashment of Proceedings under section 145, Cr. P. C. Pending against them in the Court of learned A. C. & S. D. M. City, Karachi, on the following facts and grounds:-
2. That the applicants are peace-loving, law-abiding and respectable citizens of Pakistan and carrying on business of hiring Tents, Shamiahas, Examination Furniture etc,. Under the name and style "Wajahat Brothers" ever since 1954.
3. That the applicants carried business originally at property premises situated at Roopchand Bela Ram Road Arambagh Karachi, under partner--ship with their step-mother Mst. Hajira Begum, who was the owner of the said property which partnership was later on under a mutual agreement dissolved,
4. That the applicants in the meanwhile established two more show rooms one at Nazimabad and the other at Burns Road Karachi. The premises at Roopchand Bela Ram Road, Aram Bagh was retained by the applicants as Godown, for which rent was being paid to their step-mother Afst.
Hajira Begum.
5. That the applicants are in actual physical and constructive possession of the premises situated at Roopchand Bela Ram Road, Arambagh Karachi, ever since 1954 and goods worth several hundred thousands are lying and stored in the said premises.
6. That Messrs Amjad Hussain and Sabir Ali, who were the paid employees of the father of the applicants in respect of "Ahmedia Furniture", whose stock were also stored at the said Godown, conspired against the applicants in collusion with Mst. Hajira Begum the step-mother of the applicants who is issueless and nourished grudge against the applicants at the instance and instigation of Messrs Amjad Hussain and Sabir Ali, who are related to her.
7. That the said Messrs Amjad Hussain and Sabir Ali exercised their evil and injurious influence over Mst. Hajira, in order to gain wrongful financial advantages for them, by inducing and persuading Mst. Hajira Begum to negotiate with the respondents for the development and construction of the property in possession of the applicants since 1954.
8. That the said Messrs Amjad Hussain and Sabir Ali in active collusion and collaboration with the respondents and others used criminal force and intimidation on 18th December, 1978, with a view to take forcible possession of the Godown of the Applicants, which was resisted by the timely interven--tion of Applicant No. 2 and neighbouring shopkeepers. The bid to take forcible possession was foiled and the applicants succeeded in maintaining their possession.
9. That the Applicant No. 1 apprehending some foul play at the hands of Messrs Amjad Hussain and Sabir Ali, through Mst. Hajira Begum, filed a suit bearing No. 3694 of 1978 in the Court of learned XXIth Civil Judge Karachi against Mst. Hajira Begum for Declaration and Injunction wherein the learned Judge was pleased to grant status quo to the applicants.
10. That the order of status quo was vacated, against which appeal was filed, which was also dismissed by the learned Ist Additional District Judge, Karachi, against which now a Revision bearing No. 158 of 1979 is pending disposal by the Honourable High Court after its admission on 2- 6-1979 but since then disposed off in favour of the applicants.
11. That the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 filed an application against the applicants under section 145, Cr. P. C., in the Court of learned A C & S D M City -Karachi in respect of the same property, whose possession was regulated by the learned Civil Judge in Suit No. 3694 of 1978, which is still pending.
That the learned Magistrate issued notice to the applicants requiring them to file their written statement.
12. That after the possession of the applicants was regulated by the learned Civil Judge, apprehension of breach of peace not existing, the Court of learned A. C. & S. D. M. City Karachi became virtually coram non judice.
13. That the learned A. C. & S. D. M. Failed to apply his mind judicially inasmuch as order of maintaining status quo by the civil Court governs the question of possession, during pendency of Civil Suit.
14. That the learned A. C. & S. D. M. Had no jurisdiction to entertain initiation of proceedings under section 145, Cr. P. C., as prior to it Civil suit relating to disputed premises was filed in Court and injunction regulating possession issued, therefore jurisdiction of the learned Magistrate under section 145, Cr. P. C. Disappeared. Proceedings under section 145, Cr. P. C. Under the circumstances are of no avail and an abuse of process of Court.
15. In view of the above facts, the learned Advocate for the applicants submitted as under:
(a) That on the day, when proceedings under section 145, Cr. P. C. Were filed against the applicants on 18-1-1979, there existed status quo order passed in favour of the applicants in Suit No. 3694 of 1978, and the said status quo order even now subsists, in view of order of this Court, passed in favour of applicants in Civil Revision Applicant No. 158 of 1979 and as such the said proceedings are not maintainable.
(b) That respondents have also filed Suit No. 836 of 1979 against the Applicant No. 1 and Mst. Hajira in respect of premises in question, which is still pending, in competent civil Court, and as such present proceedings are not maintainable.
(c) That there is civil dispute between the parties which is pending disposal in competent civil Court and as such continuance of present proceed--ings under section 145, Cr. P. C. Would amount to abuse of the process of the learned trial Court, in view of status quo order in favour of applicants.
(d) That complaint under section 145, Cr. P. C. Does not disclose any instances from which presumption of breach of peace between the parties could be raised and now in view of order of this Court passed in Civil Revision No. 158 of 1979, applicants continue to be in peaceful possession of the premises and as such question of breach of peace does not arise at all and consequently the proceedings under section 145, Cr. P. C. Have become infructuous.
(e) The proceedings in question were initiated by complainants (reason--dents Nos. 1 and 2) in collusion with Mst. Hajira Begum to harass and pressurise the applicants to settle civil dispute on the terms of Mst. Hajira Begum and as such are mala fide.
16. In view of above contentions, the learned Advocate for the applicants submitted, that the proceedings in question are liable to be set aside by this Court, as continuance of said proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of the learned trial Court. In support of above contentions, the learned Advocate for the applicant relied upon cases reported in PLD 1982 Kar: 149; PLD 1981 Kar. 511; 1976 P Cr. L J 195; PLD1970SC470andPLD 1968SC281.
17. The learned Advocate for respondents and Met. Hajira Begum, on the other hand submitted as under:-
(a) There exists family dispute between applicants and Mst. Hajira Begum and applicants want to deprive her of property in question, in collusion with her husband.
(b) Civil proceedings have nothing to do with the proceedings under section 145, Cr. P. C. In support of this the learned Advocate relied upon cases reported in 1974 P Cr. L J 541 and 1972 SCMR 85.
(c) That suit filed by applicants is mala fide.
(d) That applicants should have moved learned trial Court under section 145(5), Cr. P. C. And not this Court under section 561-A Cr. P. C.
18. Nobody appeared on behalf of the State.
19. I have taken into consideration the above submissions made by the learned counsel before me and have gone through complaint under sec--tion 145, Cr. P. C. And record proceedings of the learned trial Court and other documents produced by the parties as well as through the various authorities cited by the learned Advocates before me.
20. Complaint under section 145, Cr. P. C. Discloses only vague allega--tions of threatened breach of peace between the parties, without giving any specific instances to raise such presumption. 1n addition to this, in view of orders of this Court passed in Civil Revision Application No. 158 of 1979, the status quo order dated 12-12-1978 passed in Suit No. 3694 of 1978 (Now NCS 1118 of 1980) has been restored in favour of the applicants and as such question of breach of peace between the parties does not arise and consequent--ly the proceedings under section 145, Cr. P. C. Have become infructuous and disputes between the parties and Mst. Hajira Begum, will be finally settled in the HCS No. 1118 of 1980. In view of this continuance of proceedings under section 145, Cr. P. C. Would amount to abuse of the process of the learned trial Court, and harassment of the applicants, as learned trial Court cannot pass any effective orders in the said proceedings now. The authorities cited by the learned Advocate for the applicant are fully applicable to present case, whereas authorities cited by the learned Advocate for respondents and Mst. Hajira are based on different facts and as such not applicable to present case at all.
21. Therefore I allow the above petition and quash the proceedings pending against the applicants under section 145, Cr. P. C. In the Court of learned A. C. & S. D. M. City Karachi and discharge the bail bonds executed by the applicants. 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.