Abdul Sattar, respondent No.2, hereinafter referred to as the respondent, filed a complaint under section 447/440/452/506/382/148/149, P.P.C. Against the petitioners and others before a learned Magistrate, Sheikhupura, on 9-8-1981. In the said complaint he alleged that he purchased four Marlas of land from one Ghulam son of Rana and constructed a 'Kotha; thereon and thereafter, started residing there. He further alleged that Abdullah (petitioner herein) had some dispute with his predecessor-in-interest, namely, Ghulam over that 'Kotha' and a civil suit was also pending between them in the Court of learned Senior Civil Judge, Sheikhupura. He maintained that on 9-7- 1981 at 4/5-00 a.m. The petitioners and their co-accused formed themselves into an unlawful assembly after arming themselves with deadly weapons and that in furtherance of the common object of that assembly, they criminally trespassed into his 'Kotha' and ejected him. They also held out threats to him that if he resisted he would be shot dead. It has also been alleged in the complaint that certain household articles, items of jewellery and clothes, as detailed in the complaint, were also dishonestly removed and taken away by the accused.
2. The learned Magistrate, after recording the preliminary evidence, produced by the respondent, summoned Muhammad Ramzan, Abdul Rehman's, Bashir, Muhammad Yunus, Yaqoob, Bharpur, Boota, Mehtab and Abdullah to stand trial before him under section 452/148/149, P.P.C.
3. Muhammad Yunus, one of the petitioners, filed an application before the learned Magistrate under section 249-A, Cr.P.C. Seeking acquittal of the accused in the complaint on the ground that there was no likelihood of their conviction and the charge against them was groundless. The learned Magistrate, however, dismissed his application on 17-11-1981 solely on the ground that since all the accused had not yet put in appearance, therefore, it was not considered expedient to pass an order on that application.
4. Subsequently, the petitioners have filed the present petition under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. Seeking quashment of the proceedings arising out of the aforementioned complaint filed against them by the respondent.
5. It has been urged in the under consideration quashment petition that Abdullah, one of the petitioners, filed a suit against Ghulam son of Rana, the predecessor-in-interest of the respondent and others that the said petitioner was in possession of the suit property as owner and that he had constructed his house over there but the defendants wanted to forcibly dispossess him-unlawfully and, therefore, he prayed for a decree for perpetual injunction against the defendants that they should not dispossess him from the suit property unlawfully.
The suit was originally resisted by Ghulam son of Rana, the predecessor-in-interest of the respondent, but on 15-1-1976, he made a statement that Abdullah plaintiff would not be evicted otherwise than in due course of law. Consequently, the suit of Abdullah was decreed.
On 21-12-1980 the aforesaid Ghulam filed a suit against Muhammad Abdullah and others for possession of the house in dispute on the basis of ownership. Alongwith the suit, he filed an application for temporary injunction under Order XXXIX, rules 1 and 2, C.P.C. To the effect that the defendants be restrained from changing the present position of the suit house or demolishing it in any manner. The learned Senior Civil Judge, vide his order, dated 17-1-1981 dismissed the application of Ghulam for temporary injunction on the ground that Ghulam was out of possession and the balance of convenience rested in favour of the opposite party who were in possession of the suit house.
On 12-4-1981 the suit filed by Ghulam son of Rana the predecessor-in-interest of the respondent, was dismissed in default under Order IX, rule 8, C.P.C. The aforementioned facts are deducible from the contents of the Annexure 'A', 'B', 'C', 'D', 'E', 'F' and 'F/1' of the Petition.
6. It is established from the facts detailed above that even Ghulam, the predecessor-in-interest of the respondent, was not in possession of the suit property which he allegedly sold in favour of the respondent. By filing a suit for possession in the Court of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Sheikhupura, he admitted that he was out of possession. He, therefore, obviously could not deliver possession of the suit property to the respondent, even if he had effected alienation of the same in favour of the latter. The plea of the respondent that the petitioners and others criminally trespassed into his house and forcibly ejected him therefrom is baseless on the face of the records.
7. In the circumstances of the present case, as already detailed above, the claim of the respondent that he was in possession of the suit property stands falsified as a result of the litigation which remained pending between his predecessor-in-interest Ghulam son of Rana and the petitioners.
The complaint, proceedings whereof are sought to be quashed, has been instituted with mala fide intention to harass and pressurize the petitioners. Otherwise, the accusations contained therein A are groundless.
8. In this view of the matter, the instant petition under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. Is allowed and the criminal proceedings arising out of the complainant filed by the respondent against the petitioners are hereby quashed.