1. Briefly the facts of the case are that petitioner Muhammad Aslam and respondent No,1 Haji Muhammad Saeed are real brothers and .they have long standing litigation about their ancestral property. The petitioner and respondent No,2 stood surety for Inam Butt, Ahmad Ali and Saleem accused against whom proceedings under sections 107/151, Cr.P.C. were initiated by police of Police Station Old Anarkl i, Lahore on 9-12-1998.The proceedings against those persons continued till 10- 8-1999 when on submission of surety bonds to keep peace and order for one year were finally executed. The petitioner and respondent No,2 remained surety during the period from 9-12-1998 till 10-8-1999 for three persons. Respondent No,1 moved an application to the Magistrate concerned claiming that Mst. Amir Begum, mother of the petitioner and respondent No,1 alienated the property, on which, the petitioner stood surety for the persons and she died in the year 1991 and respondent No,1 had become absolute owner of the property and the petitioner being not owner of any property used the Revenue Records by misrepresentation and by playing fraud executed the surety bonds in favour of three persons, therefore, it was prayed that the matter be inquired into and appropriate action be taken against the petitioner and respondent No,2. The proceedings were still pending before the concerned Court and vide order dated 26-9-1993 Special Judicial Magistrate summoned the Patwari and the record from Sub-Registrar Office to inquire about the ownership of the property and that order was challenged by respondent No,1 before learned Additional Sessions Judge in a revision petition alleging that as the property is in the name of respondent No,1 and the civil litigation has also culminated in his favour, therefore, there was no need to inquire about the ownership and probe into the record. Learned Additional Sessions Judge proceeded to allow the revision petition filed by respondent Ne.1 vide the impugned order dated 10- 1-2002 whereby he observed that the A surety bonds furnished by the petitioner and respondent No,2 on the basis of gift deed was not legal and sufficient material was available on record before the learned lower Court to proceed against respondent No,2 and on the application of. respondent No,1 which has been challenged through law instant revision petition.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the prayer made by respondent No,1 before Special Judicial Magistrate was about determination of genuineness of the documents relied upon by the petitioner and respondent No,2 for standing surety for the accused, therefore, the proceedings initiated by the Special Judicial ,Magistrate were proper and legal and those were not subject to revisional jurisdiction invoked by the learned Additional Sessions Judge which amounts determination of title of the property and that would adversely affect the case of the petitioner pending before the civil Courts at different levels. Conversely, the petition has been opposed by the learned counsel representing respondent No,1 by stating that it was in the knowledge of the petitioner that he is no more owner of the property. Mst. Amir Begum was absolute owner of the property surrendered by the petitioner and thereafter he also committed fraud by alienating part of the land in favour of respondent No,2 and that gift deed executed by respondent No,2 was declared forged, therefore, executing surety bonds on basis of the same amounted to fraud and the impugned order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge is legal and supported from the record. It has been further argued by learned counsel for respondent No,1 that the Magistrate was not competent to reopen the matter which has already been finalized by the civil Court. The property in dispute was of urban nature, therefore, neither the Patwari has any concern nor at all inquiry should have been made by Excise and Taxation Officer. The documents regarding the property were already in possession of the police and petitioner wilfully used those documents.
3. Learned counsel for the State also supported the impugned order.
4. I have given due consideration to the contentions raised at the bar and perused the record.
5. The petitioner and his son, respondent No,2 stood surety for Inam Ali, Ahmad Ali and Muhammad Saleem, accused against whom the proceedings under sections 107/151. Cr.P.C. were initiated for keeping them bound down to remain in peace for a period of one year. The proceedings 'against them have already been terminated. Meanwhile during this period, the petitioner stood surety.
6. There was no allegation for misusing of concession of bail/bond. The civil litigation is pending between the parties over the title of the ancestral property and from the circumstances of the case it appears that the petitioner and respondent No,1 are real brothers and litigation to show down each other. By standing surety by the petitioner and his son, nobody was adversely affected. The matter was between the Court and the surety, if there was any complaint for misusing of concession of bail granted to the said accused and the respondent No,1 was neither aggrieved by the act of petitioner nor their rights were infringed in any manner. The proceedings were initiated to take their personal revenge which is wastage of Court time, therefore, I feel that the continuation- of proceedings in the instant matter is futile exercise and none of the party gain, benefit out of these proceedings, therefore, in exercise of my inherent jurisdiction under section 561. Cr.P.C. for the ends of justice I allow this petition, set aside the impugned order dated 10-1-2002 and quash the proceedings pending before the Special Judicial Magistrate on the basis of application moved by respondent No, 1.
7. Any observation made above, will not affect the case of either of the party before the civil Court of any other forum. 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.