' Brief facts of the case are that Property No S-111/13/S-I situated in Paisa Akhbar Street, Abkari Road, Anarkali, Lahore is a disputed property which is claimed by both the parties in their possession on the strength of various documents. The petitioner Muhammad Shafi claims that this property was allotted to him on 5-3-60 vide P. T.
0. No 373486 and the same was permanently transferred to him vide P. T. D. No 4900. His stand is that the respondents were tenants of this property who refused to vacate the same on his demand. He filed a suit for ejectment and the same was decreed in his favour in ex pane proceedings by Rent Controller Mahr Ahmad Raza, Civil Judge, Lahore. A bailiff was deputed to deliver the possession and the same was completed on 22-9-75, a document which is duly signed by the respondent as well as his son is Annexure B. However, the respondents forcibly dispossessed the petitioner after two days of the delivery of said possession and a grievance was made by the petitioner before the police but without any effect. Ultimately he made a complaint in the Court of Mr. Mumtaz Ahmed, Magistrate in which the respondents have been summoned as accused persons and the same is pending. On the other hand the respondents have stated that this property was occupied by the respondents as tenants of the Evacuee Trust Board and the petitioner has manipulated to effect an ex parte decree for ejeetment against them whereas his suit for ejectment was dismissed by Mr. Salabat Khan, Rent Controller,- Lahore on 8-1-75. It has also been contended that the petitioner made two abortive attempts to establish his title through a miscellaneous petition in Writ Petition No 923-R-74 which was dismissed by his Lordship Mr. Justice Muhammad Siddiq on 24-7-74 and the review application regarding the same was dismissed in limine by the same learned Judge. A second petition (W. P. No, 923/R of 1974) also made to the same effect was decided by my learned brother Dr. Nasim Hassan Shah, J., on 4th of November 1976. It has also been stated that the respondent secured status quo order first from the Chief Settlement Commissioner and then from the Chairman, Evacuee Trust Board regarding this property.
2. The present petitions relate to quashment proceedings regarding two F. I. Rs, registered against the petitioners in Criminal Miscellaneous. Nos. 142 and 144/Q of 1977 which culminated in prosecution of these petitioners before the Court of Mr. Sarfraz Khan, Magistrate 1st Class, Lahore.
The stand of the petitioners in both these cases is that in fact no occurrence of any sort took place which is complained of in these two F. I. Rs, but actually these are pressure tactics applied by the respondents to lay off the petitioners for pressing their claim regarding the disputed property. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has relied on a report of Inspector of Police which is placed on the record as Annexure 'D' as well as the observation of the trial Court itself which finds mention at page 125 of the record of the trial Court. The report of the Inspector of Police was result of the complaint lodged with the Deputy Commissioner regarding the mala fides of the respondents and the observations of the Magistrate are the result of the application filed with the Chief Secretary of this Province in which the grievance was made that the petitioner Muhammad Shall was being victimized for no fault of his and in fact a civil matter was twisted in criminal litigation to gain the ends of the respondent. I have gone through both these reports carefully which almost exonerate the petitioners of the offences with which they are charged and give them a sort of clean chit. Out of these two reports the observations of the Magistrate who is trying this case practically tantamount to the order of discharge against the petitioners because he being himself the trial Court has found that no offence was made out against the petitioners and if there was any grievance with the respondents the same could be redressed through proceedings under section 145 or 150 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Many other interesting features have also been brought to my notice by the learned counsel for the petitioners; one of which is where Sardar Bibi widow of Nazir Ahmad was involved but ultimately Khurshid Begum widow of Ghulam Ahmad has been mentioned in the F. I. R. As the culprit. The Inspector of Police who made Inquiry in this case on the Instructions of the Deputy Commissioner also expressed his surprise regarding this peculiar feature of this case which is based on cogent reasons.
3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has submitted that he is also facing a similar difficulty in a complaint case which has been lodged against the respondents by the petitioner although no evidence has been recorded so far in both the cases; the present and the complaint case. The stand of the learned counsel for the respondents is that unless and until some evidence, comes on record to test the truthfulness or otherwise of the charges so levelled against the petitioners it would not be justified to quash the proceedings against the petitioners. He has also referred to the injury sustained by Muhammad Anwar on his head although declared to be simple to show that there was something material which had given grievance to the respondents against the petitioners.
4. I have given my anxious thought to all the contentions raised by the petitioners and the respondents and keeping in view the above circumstances I find that the contentions of the re?
Pendants are without any substance. The law on the point is that a criminal case can be quashed even when it has passed the stage of investigation by the police and the same is put up before the Court for adjudication. As far as the argument that the injury would show that something had happened I am afraid that this would be of any avail to the respondents in view of the peculiar and intriguing circumstances of this case. When the trial Court itself does not find any case against the petitioners I wonder why the same should be allowed to continue indefinitely which would be nothing but an abuse of process of Court from all angles. I am of the considered opinion that the parties who are in reality interested in possession of the disputed property or its title have manoeuvred to involve each other in cases of criminal nature so that each one of them should think twice before they pursue their remedies before the proper forum. The facts of the case as narrated above speak for themselves and need no further elaboration on my part. The result is that I quash the criminal proceedings in both the F. I. Rs, pending before the Magistrate 1st Class, Lahore who himself has come to a justified conclusion that no case of any sort of criminal nature existed against the petitioners. To allow him further to continue with this case would be embarrassing his own position which I do not want to do so. Both the petitions are disposed of accordingly.