1. ' This application has been filed by the applicant through his learned counsel in which he has challenged the order of respondent No,2 for attachment of the Bus Stand premises till the final resolution of the dispute and till then Municipal Committee Staff is appointed for regulating the timings of vehicles at the stop by exercising powers under section 145(1), Cr. P.C.
2. ' The facts of the matter are that the applicant on becoming Chairman of Sindh Transport Worker Union, took over the management of the Bus Stop known as Ayubia Bus Stop. Tando Muhammad Khan, and started regulating the timings of the vehicle such as buses mini-buses, coasters etc. List of office-bearers has also been issued by the Deputy Director Registration of Trade Union Sindh, Karachi under his seal and signature, dated 5-6-1985 disclosing the Chairmanship of the present applicant with the entire body of the union. Bus owners, owners of mini buses, coasters etc. Are plying their respective vehicles on the route from Hyderabad, Badin, Sajawal, Golarchi, Pangario, Digri, Tando Bago and other destinations and the present applicant has been unanimously authorized and has been recognized as Chairman by the owners of aforementioned vehicles. They have also authorized the applicant to deploy the persons of his own choice as Time-Keeper and starter. Respondent No,2 S.D.M., Tando Muhammad Khan without issuing any notice to the applicant, its body who were managing and operating timekeeping since 1985, by order, dated 24- 1-2001 deprived them from their legal right which continued to recurring till today at the instance of some influential persons and by showing the dispute over the said bus stop between the parties.
3. Respondent No,2 in his order has quoted an incident of 1989 which has no relevancy with the present subject-matter i.e, Ayubia Bus Stop, Tando Muhammad Khan. He knowingly that the present matter is not falling within his jurisdiction passed the order, dated 24-1-2001 without observing the legal formalities provided by the law.
4. ' Today the comments have been filed by respondent No,2 alongwith other documents.
5. ' I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have examined very carefully the impugned order, which has been passed by respondent No,2 under section 145(1)(4), Cr.P.C.
6. ' Mr. Allah Bachayo Soomro, learned counsel for the applicant has drawn my attention to section 145(4), Cr.P.C. Contending that without reference to the merits or claim of any such parties to a right to possess the subject of dispute, pursue the statements so put in, hear the parties, receive all such evidence as may be produced by them respectively, consider the effect of such evidence, take such further evidence (if any) as he thinks necessary, and, if possible, decide whether any which of the parties was at the date of the order before mentioned in such possession of the said subject and according to the learned counsel for the applicant, the respondent No,2 has not acted according to the provisions envisaged in section 145(4), Cr.P.C. Which is evident from his order, dated 24-1-2001. He has further submitted that he has mentioned in his order about the clash between the two parties which occurred in 1989 and that incident has got no relevancy with the present subject-matter and according to him he has not applied his mind while passing the order under section 145(1)(4), Cr.P.C. He has further contended that there is nothing to suggest that there was any imminent danger likely to cause breach of peace over the subject-matter and respondent No,2 has acted illegally having no jurisdiction over the subject-matter. He has placed reliance on (sic) PCr.LJ 240-241 wherein it has been held that dispute concerning land etc. Likely to cause breach of peace and every dispute between the parties claiming possession or ownership of certain property does not give rise to proceedings under section 145, Cr.P.C. Unless the same is genuinely and reasonably apprehended to lead to breach of peace. He has also placed reliance on 1996 PCr.LJ 560 with regard to judicial requirements for assumption of jurisdiction under 145, Cr.P.C. Which are (i) existence of a dispute, (ii) such dispute is likely to cause breach of peace, (iii) dispute is concerning land, water, building, markets, fisheries, crops or other produce of the land and the rents or profits of such property, (iv) dispossession if alleged is within two months prior to the initial order passed by the Magistrate, and (v) dispute is within the territorial jurisdiction of the Magistrate concerned. He has further placed reliance on 1968 PCr.LJ 1882 wherein it has been held that under section 145, Cr.P.C. While passing order by Magistrate on application under section 145, Cr.P.C. He must know importance of distinction between a "dispute: and a dispute likely to lead to breach of peace. It has been held in the aforementioned decision of this Court that practice of using criminal Courts for settling civil disputes to be deprecated much more.
7. On the other hand respondent No,2 has filed the written statement alongwith documents. Be that as it may, I have gone through the order very carefully. The ingredients of section 145, Cr.P.C. Have not been followed by respondent No,2 while passing order under section 145(1)(4), Cr.P.C. He has also referred in his order with regard to incident which occurred in 1989 and it is not evident from the order that there was imminent danger of breach of peace over the subject-matter and thus, has not taken into consideration the law involved in the matter. I am in fully agreement with the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant and I am also being fortified by the aforementioned authorities which are very much applicable in the present case. Accordingly I allow this application, quash the proceedings and set aside order, dated 24-1-2001 passed by respondent No,2. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.