' Through this Constitutional petition, the petitioner has challenged the impugned order passed by respondent No,1 under section 145, Cr.P.C. And prays for declaring the same as without lawful authority and having no legal effect, and also prays for setting aside of the order dated 14-6-2001 and order dated 17-7-2001 passed by the respondent No,1.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner claims that the petitioner purchased a house constructed on the Plot bearing No,326/S-321 measuring 9 Marlas situated in Chak No,203/RB Mannawala from one Mst. Sakina Bibi wife of Muhammad Ikram through agreement to sell dated 15-2-2001 for a consideration of Rs,16,50,000 and Iqrar Nama was also executed by said Mst. Sakina Bibi. The possession of the house was duly delivered to the petitioner. Muhammad Ikram husband of Mst. Sakina Bibi is the marginal witness on the said Iqrar Nama. Respondent No,3 who is son-in- law of Mst. Sakina Bibi and Muhammad Ikram, claims him owner of said house on the basis of General Power of Attorney dated 21-10-1986 executed by Mst.Sakina Bibi in favour of her daughter Mst. Sajida who is wife of respondent No,3. Petitioner claims that said Sakina Bibi on coming to know about said Power of Attorney moved an application to Director, F.D.A. Faisalabad on 10-2- 2001, and cancellation deed was duly executed by Mst. Sakina Bibi on 26-2-2001 by which she had cancelled the General Power of Attorney in favour of respondent No,3. Respondent No,3 on coming to know about the cancellation of Power-of-Attorney in order to complicate the case, he executed General Power of Attorney in favour of respondent No,4. Mst. Sakina Bibi died on 9-3-2001 and according to the petitioner respondents Nos.3 and 4 executed the sale-deed, dated 20-3-2001 after the death of Mst. Sakina Bibi and after the cancellation of General Power-of-Attorney and they committed forgery. Respondents Nos.3 and 4 succeeded in lodging the F.I.R. No, 249 dated 23- 5-2001 under sections 448 and 380 P.P.C. At Police Station Nishatabad District Faisalabad in which the petitioner, Muhammad Ikram (father-in-law of respondent No,3) and one Itesham grand-son of Ikram were nominated as accused. Petitioner claims that he was living in the house in question and he was arrested in the said F.I.R. And proceedings under section 145, Cr.P.C. Were initiated by the S.H.O. And order was passed by respondent No,1 on 14-6-2001 whereby the house in question was sealed and the family members of the petitioner were dispossessed by the order of respondent No,1. The petitioner after his release from there on bail filed a reply to the proceedings under section 145, Cr.P.C. And prayed for desealing of the house in question but respondent No,1 vide order dated 17-7-2001 dismissed the application of the petitioner. Now, both the orders passed by respondent No,1 are impugned in this petition.
3 Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that both the orders passed by respondent No,1 are illegal, void, unlawful and without jurisdiction. It is also contended that the petitioner has already called in question through Writ Petition No,14296 of 2001 the validity of the F.I.R. Lodged by respondents Nos.3 and 4 against the petitioner and other persons. It is further contended that Mst.
Sakina Bibi and Muhammad Ikram have no male issue and respondents Nos.3 and 4 want to usurp the property in question and had committed forgery. The petitioner claims that he was filed a Civil Suit in the Court of learned Civil Judge, Faisalabad and during the pendency the civil suit, the proceedings has been initiated by respondent No, 1 and orders were passed which are illegal, unlawful and without lawful authority.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents Nos.3 and 4 has opposed this writ petition on the ground that the initiation of proceedings under section 145, Cr.P.C. Are with lawful authority and cannot be challenged in writ petition. The proceedings in the civil suit at the time of sealing of the house were not pending and there was breach of peace and the registration of F.I.R. No,249 also supports that there was breach of peace and the Illaqa Magistrate has rightly passed both the impugned order which cannot be declared illegal and without unlawful authority.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record. Admittedly the facts narrated by the learned counsel for the petitioner show that the petitioner was in possession of the property. The Power of Attorney on the basis of which other special Power of Attorney has been executed by respondent No,3 has already been cancelled by Mst. Sakina Bibi on 26-2-2001.
Hence, execution of sale-deed on 20-3-2001, due to the cancellation of Power of Attorney got registered prima facie in connivance with the staff of F.D.A. Is not genuine. The cancellation of Power of Attorney executed by the executant is sufficient to show that sale-deed has been executed on the power which has been cancelled. Mst. Sakina Bibi died on 9-3-2001. Hence the power given by Mst. Sakina Bibi had already finished and sale-deed could not be executed. The house in question vested in the legal heirs of Mst. Sakina Bibi at the time of sale-deed. The petitioner claims that he has filed a civil suit in which status quo order has been passed and the respondents Nos. 3 and 4 have maneuvered the proceedings under section 145, Cr.P.C. In order to dispossess the petitioner and give the possession to respondents Nos.3 and 4 of the house which they otherwise cannot obtain through legal process. As their claim is based on the illegal documents allegedly on the basis of Power of Attorney which has already Nan cancelled and even before the death of Mst. Sakina Bibi. Prima facie they had adopted procedure of section 145, Cr.P.C.
To get the possession of the house, and in order to throw the petitioner out of premises. If the possession is taken then the pendency of civil suit will become in their favour as the civil litigation will take years but they will remain in the said house even due to the invalid sale-deed. Civil suit has already been filed by the petitioner and the status quo order has been passed. Interference of the Magistrate by passing of orders under section 145, Cr.P.C. Is transgression of power. The impugned orders has been passed by giving brief facts and the order does not show reasons for the action taken by the learned Magistrate under section 145, Cr.P.C. The contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner are supported by the documentary evidence and prima facie it seems that the petitioner has been deprived of the possession under the cover of section 145, Cr.P.C. By initiation of proceedings by the police prima facie in connivance with the respondents Nos.3 and 4. The initiation of proceedings under section 145. Cr.P.0 and passing of the impugned orders are not based on valid ground and the procedure adopted by respondent No,3 cannot be allowed. The possession of the house from the petitioner cannot be taken in the manner as it has been taken by the police by sealing the house, when the status quo order has already been passed in favour of the petitioner. The police or the Magistrate have no power to interfere in the case in which the matter is sub judice before the Civil Court and the Civil Court has already passed status quo order. This practice cannot be allowed to continue. The orders passed by the City Magistrate prima facie are without any reason and ground and in the presence of the status quo orders are set aside by accepting this writ petition. City Magistrate is directed to deseal the property.