' Through this writ petition, Khushi Muhammad and 25 others, the petitioners herein, seek the quashment of case. F.I.R. No,182 registered at Police Station Sharaqpur, District Sheikhupura, on 13- 5-1994 by respondent No,1 on the application of Ghulam Ali respondent No,3.
2. The allegations in the writ petition are that Ghulam Ali (respondent No,3) had, by forging a so- called will, dated 10-1-19981, of Barkat Ali (deceased), misappropriated his entire estate. When Ghulam Fatima, Ibrahim and Ismail, the legal heirs of Barkat Ali (deceased), came to know about this fraudulent deal, they brought a civil suit, challenging the validity of the will and during its pendency, without disclosing this fact, sold the disputed land to Mushtaq Ahmad petitioner No,2, vide registered sale-deed, dated 4-6-1989, for a sum of rupees seven lacs and transferred its possession to him. When Mushtaq Ahmad petitioner came to know about the pending litigation, he made an application to the Court concerned for becoming a party thereto but his application was rejected and his appeal was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sheikhupura on 9- 6-1991. He filed Writ Petition No,5761 of 1991 which was accepted by this Court on 8-3-1994. Earlier on 17-11-1989 Ghulam Ali respondent alongwith 10 others committed murder of Rashid Ali, a young son of Mushtaq Ahmad petitioner, and on trial he alongwith his five co-accused was convicted under sections 148 and 302/149, P.P.C. And each one of them was sentenced to imprisonment for life and a fine while his other co-accused were acquitted on benefit of doubt. The convicts filed an appeal, while the complainant filed a revision, which are still pending in the High Court. However, Ghulam Ali respondent No,3 has been released on bail and on his application case. F.I.R. No,182 has been registered against the petitioners under section 380, P.P.C. For committing theft of his belongings from his house during the day in the month of November, 1989 when his house had forcibly been ransacked by them (petitioners) after the murder of his son Mushtaq Ahmad petitioner.
3. It was argued that Ghulam Ali respondent No,3 got the case registered against the petitioners, some of whom were witnesses in the murder case against him and his co-accused, in order to pressurise them for effecting compromise therein and the police, under the influence exerted through the Chief Minister of the Punjab who directed the registration of the case, is out to arrest them and in these circumstances the case and its investigation was liable to be quashed.
4. The writ petition was opposed by respondent No,3 who asserted that on the registration of the murder case of the son of Mushtaq Ahmad petitioner against him and his other members of family in October, 1989, the petitioners ransacked his house and took away his entire belongings and since he and his relations were arrested and his women-folk ran away from the house, nobody could report the matter to the police and in fact the police did not listen to anybody in sympathy with the complainant party and after his release on bail on sta_utory ground as a convict in the murder case, when he went back to his village, he brought this fact to the notice of the Chief Minister of the Punjab, under whose direction the police had registered the case and whatever had been stated by him was a truth. According to him, his belongings worth thousands of rupees were in the illegal custody of the petitioners who had forcibly removed the same away, taking advantage of the absence of his family members from the house and they were yet to be recovered from them.
5. Respondent No,1, who was present in the Court with record, stated that the case had been registered against the petitioners under the orders of the Chief Minister but he had not so far arrested anyone from them. He stated that he was yet to recover the stolen goods from them.
6. It is an admitted position that civil and criminal litigation is going on between the petitioners and respondent No,3 stands convicted along with others in the murder case of the son of Mushtaq Ahmad petitioner. If respondent No,3 and his associates could afford to kill a son of one of the petitioners over a land dispute, ordinarily it was not expected that the petitioners would dare to ransack his house but if at all they adopted that course, the other family. Members of respondent No,3 could very well report the matter to the police against the petitioners and set the criminal law in motion against them for the theft of their belongings but they kept quiet for about five years until respondent No,3 returned to the house on his release on bail and got the case registered against the petitioners under the directions of the Chief Minister of the Punjab.
7. It all appears to be a political game and a device to pressurise the petitioners to effect compromise in the murder case. The amount of mischief can be judged from this fact alone that in this case as many as 26 persons, the petitioners, have been implicated. To my mind, it seems to be a false case and it would be in the interest of justice if it is buried a soon as possible. The writ petition is, therefore, accepted and the registration of case F.I.R. No,182 and all its proceedings so far taken are declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect.