' Having been accused in case FIR No,31 of 1988 registered under sections 506/354/148/149 and 440, P.P.C. at Police Station A-Division, Okara at the instance of one Haji Khushi Muhammad against the petitioners, they have filed this petition under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. for the quashing of proceedings pending in the Court of Ch. Muhammad Ashraf, Magistrate, Ist Class, Okara.
2. The brief facts giving rise to this petition are; that Abid Hussain Qureshi, Rent Controller, Okara, passed an ejectment order dated 27-6-1984, under the provisions of Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1984, in favour of the petitioners against Siraj Din etc. respondents in respect of Shop No,B-II-6-S-18, Rail Bazar, Okara. The respondents in that petition filed an appeal against the order of ejectment before the learned District Judge, on 16-7-1984, and the learned District Judge after summoning the record admitted the appeal for regular hearing with a direction that the execution of the impugned order would remain suspended till further orders. His Stenographer, however, failed to type out about the stay order in the order sheet, although in his note book he recorded about the stay order in shorthand. Subsequently on 26-7-1984, the petitioner took out execution proceedings wherepon the learned Rent Controller issued the warrant for delivery of possession to the petitioners on 29-7-1984. According to the FIR, the petitioners---Haji Khushi Muhammad etc. after obtaining the warrant of possession with the assistance of 25 persons armed with Lathis and Dandas committed the mischief and as such, threw away the articles of the complainant lying in the shop causing damage to his property to the extent of Rs,75,000. Modesty of the house ladies was also outraged. The complainant moved an application to the District Judge, Okara, but no action was taken thereon and, therefore, the complainant moved the office of M.I.T., Lahore High Court for the redress of his grievance. From there the application was sent to the Police A-Division Okara and the case was registered against the petitioners on 3-2-1988.
3. The petitioners have since been challaned in the case and the case is pending for trial before the learned Magistrate. The petitioners made an application under section 249-A, Cr.P.C. before the learned trial Court for their acquittal but the same has been dismissed vide order dated 7-10-1992 on the ground that no prosecution evidence being brought on record, so it was impossible for him to determine regarding the innocence of the petitioners. The petitioners have, therefore, moved this Court for the quashing of the proceedings and for their acquittal in that case.
4. It is contended that there was an inordinate delay in lodging the F.I.R. As according to the F.I.R., itself, the occurrence took place on 26-7-1984 and the F.I.R. was lodged on 3-2-1988 after about delay of 4 years. It was also argued that. during the course of investigation the police came to the conclusion that no case is made out against the petitioners and a report for cancellation thereof was also prepared as reported by the D.S.P. (Legal) on 12-3-1988 but under the orders of the District Attorney, Okara the petitioners were challaned. The report of the bailiff dated 29-7-1984 favourable to the petitioners was also pressed into service. It was lastly argued that the complainant in connivance with the local police and in order to pressurise the petitioners wants to prolong their agony and also in order to wreak the old vengeance; when the possession of the shop is already with the petitioners since long and no cause is left between the complainant and the petitioners.
5. Conversely, Mr. Zafar Iqbal Chaudhry, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant repelled the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners and submitted that the delay caused in getting the case after four years has been explained by the complainant and the same was accepted by the other Courts while dealing with the appeal, revision and bail matters.
6. I have given my earnest consideration to the arguments advanced by all sides and have also gone through the record very minutely. I find that the complainant immediately after this occurrence moved an application to the learned District Judge, Okara where a regular enquiry was conducted by the learned District Judge in that regard, and that remained pending for a long time.
After the completion of the enquiry, the learned District Judge did not pass any order and, therefore, the complainant moved the office of the M.I.T., Lahore High Court, and that office, after enquiry, got the case registered on 3-2-1988. For this delay, in my view, is not the respondent responsible but it was the enquiry proceedings before the learned District Judge which continued for a long time. This plea of unexplained delay in the registration of the case, in my view, becomes ipso facto abortive.
7. So far as the clerical omission by the stenographer of the District Judge, Okara is concerned, I cannot give any importance to the statement of the Stenographer dated 29-8-1984 in view of which the Rent Controller passed the order for the restoration of the possession of the complainant under the orders of the learned District Judge dated 30-7-1984. It is clear that illegal action, if any, was initiated at the instance of the petitioners who by making a false narration before competent Court got the warrant of possession. When the bailiff went to the shop for the eviction of the complainant he stated before him that the status quo had been issued. If the status quo was not produced by the complainant, it did not mean that it was not issued. The bailiff was legally and morally obliged not to take any action without verification of a fact narrated by the complainant.
8. Prima facie, from the evidence gathered by the police available on the file, the petitioners are named in the statements of all the P.Ws. They took the law in theft own hands and flouted the process of the Court and law just to meet with their ends and design.
9. Without prejudice to the merits and the evidence of the case which is still to be recorded by the leaned trial Court I do not fmd the proceedings pending against the petitioners being abuse of the process of Court and law and, therefore, this petition is dismissed.
10. However, in view of the fact that it is a 1988 matter pertaining to occurrence of 1984, I direct the learned Magistrate to conclude this case, F.I.R. No,31/88 under the above-noted sections of Police Station A-Division, Okara, within four months from the date of this order.