' JAWAID NAWAZ KHAN GANDAPUR, J.--- A complaint under section 145, Cr.P.C. Was filed by respondents Nos.2 to 4, Mst. Akhtar Sultan etc. Against the petitioner wherein it was alleged that the contesting respondents were the owners, in possession, of suit Khasra Nos. 187, 77, 185, 260, 410, 441/177/178, 196, 120, 411, 175, 266, 479/275, 315 and 159 that the petitioner vide Mutation No,1167 attested on 14-7-1994 had purchased an area measuring 7 Canals and 6 Marla's only out of the said suit property, that the petitioner, instead' of taking the possession of 7 Canals and six Marla's of land, grabbed the entire land mentioned above. The respondents further alleged that since the petitioner was an influential/powerful person of the area and because of the fact that contesting respondents were all Pardah Nasheen ladies, therefore, taking undue advantage of his position, the petitioner had grabbed their property without any rhyme or reason. Hence the complaint under section 145, Cr.P.C. They also prayed that, in the meantime, the possession of the disputed property be handed over to them.
2. The complaint was marked to the S.H.O. Police Station, Tarnab for enquiry and report. After the completion of the enquiry a report was submitted by the S.H.O. However, it was found that it related to only two Khasra Nos., as such the M.I.c., Charsadda returned the complaint to him on 16-2-1995 with the direction to hold further enquiry and summon the Patwari Halqa, alongwith Fard Jamabandi and Khasra Girdawari regarding the disputed property and then submit a proper report, complete in all respects.
3. It may be pointed out that while the enquiry was being conducted. The contesting respondents submitted an application before the said Magistrate 1st Class, stating therein that the dispute, in fact, pertained to two Khasras Nos. Only, i,e, Khasra No,159 and Khasra No,315. The Magistrate therefore, directed the police to investigate about the factum of possession of the said two Khasras Nos. The needful was done by the local police.
4. The Magistrate then summoned the contesting respondents i,e, respondents Nos.2, 3 and 4 (all ladies) as well as the petitioner. They were directed to explain/plead their cases in respect of actual possession, on the spot, of these two Khasras Nos. After hearing the parties, the Magistrate came to the conclusion that since the petitioner had become a co-sharer, by purchase, and had entered into the possession of the disputed Khasras Nos. As a co-sharer, therefore, there could be no dispute about the possession. He also took into consideration the fact that two civil suits were pending between the parties. In a Civil Court having jurisdiction, therefore, he was of the view that interference in the matter by a criminal Court was not warranted by law. Holding so, he held that the complaint was devoid of any substance and thus filed the same without taking any further action.
5. Aggrieved by the said order the contesting respondents filed a revision petition in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Charsadda.
6. The Additional Sessions Judge after going through the record of the case and hearing the parties, held that the order of Magistrate 1st Class was bad in law. Consequently, the revision petition was accepted and the impugned order of the Magistrate was set aside and the property in dispute was attached under section 145(4), Cr.P.C. However, the Additional Sessions Judge remanded the case to the Magistrate and directed him to provide opportunity to' both the parties to produce evidence in support of their respective stands and then to give his findings in respect of the actual/physical possession of the property, at the relevant time. In other words he directed the M.I.C. To decide the matter afresh in accordance with law.
6. The petitioner has now challenged the vires of the order of the Additional Sessions Judge by filing this writ petition.
7. We have heard Mr. Gulsadbar Khan, Advocate the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Shakeel Ahmad, Advocate learned counsel for the contesting respondents (Nos. 2 to 4) and Mr. Shah Jehan Khan Additional Advocate-General, learned counsel for respondents Nos.1 to 5 and have also gone through the record of the case with some degree of care.
8. It may be stated at the very outset that the law framers have purposely chosen not to confer a right of second appeal against the decisions in such like cases and if we are to rehear the case on merits/evidence and substitute our own findings in place of the Sessions Judge, it would tantamount to defeating its policy and purpose. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that the real intent and the purpose of filing this writ petition is to circumvent and frustrate the adjudication of the case on merits by the Magistrate 1st Class to whom the case was remanded by the Additional 'Sessions Judge for decision afresh on merits.
9. There is no non-compliance of any statutory provision nor does the record show any failure of justice which may need correction by us. In our opinion, the order of the Additional Sessions Judge is neither illegal nor void. On the other hand, the manner in which the petitioner wants to use the process of this Court, to his advantage, clearly disentitles him to the discretionary relief to be granted under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan. It may be noted that the writ jurisdiction is only of supervisory nature and is not an appellate jurisdiction. Accordingly the High Court could only interfere, legitimately, where it is found that there is any error of law, jurisdiction or that the decision given is in breach of rules of natural justice or that the findings are based on no evidence. The decision of an inferior Court cannot be quashed on the ground that the same is wrong if the inferior. Court has acted well within its jurisdiction and not in excess of it In the circumstances this writ petition being devoid of any substance is accordingly dismissed.
10. However, the trial Magistrate is directed to complete the proceedings under section 145, Cr.P.C., as directed by Additional Sessions Judge, within a period of three months from the receipt of the record and submit his compliance report to the Registrar of this Court.
C.M. No,1712 of 1995.
' Since the writ petition has been dismissed, therefore, this C.M. Has become infructuous and is disposed of as such.