1. CHAUDHARY IJAZ AHMED, J.- The brief facts out of which the present Cr. Misc, arises, are that petitioners submitted an application before the Police on 30.3.1997 and the Police submitted the same before the Executive/Duty Magistrate for initiating proceedings for attachment of the land in dispute measuring 12 kanals of killa Nos. 12, 22 Khata No. 202. The learned Duty Magistrate on receipt of qalandra from Police Station Noshahra Jadeed, District, Bahawalpur initiated proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C, and attached the land in question vide his order dated 31.3.1997. The respondents aggrieved by the said order of the learned Magistrate filed Criminal Revision Petition before the learned Sessions Judge which w as entrusted to the learned Additional Sessions Judge who vide his order dated 22.7.1997 set aside the order of the learned Magistrate dated 31.3.1993 to the following effect: "The matter thus falls outside the jurisdiction of Magistrate u/'S. 145 Cr.P.C. In this connection reliance is placed on NLR 1985 Criminal page 472. Reliance has also been placed on 1986 P.Cr.L.J.
2. 1198 Karachi wherein it has been held that since the Civil Court by issuing status quo order had allowed parts in possession of the property to continue in possession, the Criminal Court had no jurisdiction to interfere by entertaining section 145 Cr.P.C, proceedings and passing attachment order".
3. The present petitioner aggrieved by the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge filed this criminal miscellaneous for quashment of the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge.
4. 2 The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the order dated 31.3.1997 passed by the Executive Duty Magistrate. Ahmed pur East in the proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C, were not revisable by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Learned counsel further argued that the order passed under Section 145 Cr.P.C, is executive order, therefore, learned Additional Sessions Judge has no authority to set aside the same. He further argued that no order from any competent Court regularising about the possession of the land in question, of any party. The order under Section 145 Cr.P.C, is to prevent the apprehension of breach of peace in case the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge is not set aside then the apprehension of breach of peace will remain in field. The learned counsel relied upon Section 6 of the Cr.P.C, and highlighted that Court of Sessions has no jurisdiction to hear the cases in which the order passed by a Magistrate in executive side.
5. He further argued that since the separation of judiciary' has taken place, therefore, learned Sessions Judge or learned Additional Sessions Judge has no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the matter. The Magistrate are subordinates to District Magistrate and relied upon Section 17 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.^The order passed by the Executive/Duty Magistrate under section 145 Cr.P.C, is of executive nature and relied upon Luri Singh and others v. Bamkirit Singh (A.I.R. 1941 Patna 105). He further argued that status quo was not granted by the Civil Court, therefore. Magistrate has only authority. To take cognizance under Section 145 Cr.P.C, and the respondents have obtained status quo order from the Revenue Courts. He also argued that status-quo does not mean actual possession of the parties. He relied upon Haji Muhammad Ashraf v. The State and 3 others (1988 P.Cr.L.J. Peshawar 2268). The learned Senior Counsel Mr. Muhammad Mahmood Ahmed Bhatti.
6. Advocate on behalf of the respondents supported the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge on each and every point. He argued that the words mentioned in Section 146 of the Code of Criminal procedure is the competent Court which does not mean automatically a Civil Court.
7. In the present case competent Court means Revenue Court. He relied upon Shafiq Khan v. The State and another (1989 P.Cr.L.J. Karachi 2455), Mehr Muhammad Sarwar and others v. The State and others (NLR 1985 Criminal 472) and Muhammad Hussain and another v. The State and another (1986 P.Cr.L.J. Karachi 1198). He further argued that Magistrate passed order under Section 145 Cr.P.C, is judicial order and relied upon Mst. Nasira Akhtar v. The State and others (1996 P.Cr.L.J.
8. Lahore 560), Raja v. The State (1994 MLD Lahore 133) and Shah Muhammad v. The State and 5 others (1983 SGMR 1173). He further argued that order passed by the District Magistrate or Magistrates are revisable only bv the Sessions Judges or Additional Sessions Judges by virtue of Section 439-A Code of Criminal Procedure. The learned counsel for the other respondents also supported the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge and adopted the arguments of learned counsel for the respondent No. 1.
3. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel for the panics, it is admitted fact that Member Board of Revenue passed order on 4.12.1996 whereby he had passed status quo order with regard to the land in dispute and the petitioner submitted application on 30.3.1997, therefore, competent Court has already taken cognizance of the matter and status quo has already been granted pending adjudication on merits, therefore, application filed by the petitioner on 30.3.1997 is mala fide, therefore, proceedings initiated on this application before the learned Magistrate is without lawful authority. The judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge is valid within the four corners of the law. The order of the learned Magistrate is fully competently and validly challaned by the respondents before the learned Additional Sessions Judge. It is admitted fact that Sections 439 and 439-A Code of Criminal Procedure come later then Sections 6 and 17 Cr.P.C. It is well-established principle of law of interpretation that later will prevail.
9. I am fortified by the judgment Suleman Khan v. Abdul Aziz and 3 others PLJ 1983 SC (AJK) 47) and Muhammad Yousaf v. The State. And others (1992 P.Cr.L.J. Karachi 1370) and the relevant observation is as follows: "In fact this question was considered by the Supreme Court in the case of Muhammad Shafiq and others v. Abdul Hayee and others reported in 1987 SCMR 1371. Wherein it was held that the powers possessed by the Courts under Sections 435/439. Cr.P.C, do not impinge; curtail or limit in any manner whatsoever the powers under section 561-A Cr.P.C.. In view7 of these observations, there is no room left for the argument that the remedy under section 561-A is not available where the matter is finally decided at the level of the Court of Sessions under Section 439-A Cr.P.C."
10. On this point I am also fortified by the judgments Badaruddin v. Mehr Ahmed Raza. Additional Sessions Judge. Jhang etc (NLR Criminal S.C. 593) and Shah Muhammad v. The State and 5 others (1983 SCMR 1173). The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner has no force as the proceedings before the learned Magistrate under Section 145 Cr.P.C, are in the nature of civil proceedings as is held by the Karachi High Court in Ahmed Hemani v. The State and 2 other (1992 P.Cr.L.J. 1131).
4. In view of what has been discussed above this petition has no force. With this observation the petition stands disposed of.