The necessary facts giving rise to the present petition are that at the relevant time in the year 1999 the petitioner was the landlord and respondent No,1 was statedly a tenant of a parcel of land and apprehending his illegal dispossession respondent No,1 had filed a suit before the Assistant Collector, Wazirabad, District Gujranwala on 25-9-1999 seeking protection against his apprehended dispossession. During the pendency of that suit respondent No,1 was allegedly dispossessed by the petitioner on 30-9-1999 whereafter respondent No,1 instituted a petition before the Assistant Collector, Wazirabad on 7-10-1999 seeking initiation of contempt proceedings against the petitioner. However, during the pendency of both the above mentioned matters respondent No,1 filed an application under section 145, Cr.P.C. Before the Assistant Commissioner, Wazirabad, District Gujranwala on 9-10-1999 claiming therein existence of an apprehension regarding breach of peace and praying for restoration of his possession of the disputed land. During the pendency of that application under section 145, Cr.P.C. The suit as well as the contempt petition were withdrawn by respondent No,1 from the Court of the Assistant Collector, Wazirabad. The application of respondent No,1 under section 145, Cr.P.C. Was sent by the Assistant Commissioner to the Area Magistrate for holding an inquiry. A reply to that application was submitted by the petitioner whereafter respondent No,1 as well as the petitioner produced their witnesses before the Area Magistrate and they also made their own statements. On 23-9-2000, after receipt of a report from the 'Area Magistrate, the Executive Magistrate 1st Class, Alipur Chatha, the successor of the Assistant Commissioner, Wazirabad, dismissed respondent No,l's application under section 145, Cr.P.C. Maintaining that the precondition for proceeding under section 145, Cr.P.C. Regarding existence of an apprehension of breach of peace had not been established. Respondent No,1 preferred a revision petition against the said order before the Court of Session, Gujranwala and through the judgment dated 7-11-2001 rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Wazirabad, District Gujranwala that revision petition was allowed and the matter was remanded to the learned Magistrate for deciding the question of possession of the land in dispute and then to consider whether the land in dispute could be restored to respondent No,1 's possession. That judgment passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Wazirabad has been assailed by the petitioner before this Court through the present petition.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of this case with their assistance. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that an apprehension regarding breach of peace is a pre-condition for proceeding further with an application under section 145, Cr.P.C. And in the absence of any such apprehension in the present case the learned Magistrate was quite justified in dismissing respondent No,l's application under section 145, Cr.P.C. He has further maintained that the application of respondent No,1 under section 145, Cr.P.C. Had been filed in the year 1999 and in the next about four years no untoward incident has taken place in respect of the land in dispute and, thus, continuance of the said proceedings under section 145, Cr.P.C. Is no longer justified at this stage. He has placed reliance in this regard upon the case of Qazi Gran v. Muhammad Jan and another PLD 1996 SC 541. As against that the learned counsel for respondent No,1 has maintained that at the initial stage of the matter the learned Assistant Commissioner, Wazirabad had found the jurisdictional requirement regarding apprehension of breach of peace to have been fulfilled whereafter an inquiry was ordered and held and, thus, at this stage the learned Magistrate could not hold that there was no apprehension regarding breach of peace. According to the learned counsel for respondent No,1 the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Wazirabad was, therefore, quite justified in remanding the matter to the learned Magistrate for proceeding further in the matter and to decide about the question of possession and its possible restoration to respondent No,1. He has placed reliance upon the cases of Mirza Abdul Razzaq v. Barkat Ali and others 1985 SCM R 1235 and Muhammad Khurshid Khan v.
Asif Raza Mir and another PLD 1998 SC 123. The learned Additional Advocate-General has maintained that proceedings under section 145, Cr.P.C. Are meant for situations which are emergent in nature but in the present case no untoward incident has taken place between the parties for the last about four years and, thus, continuance of the said proceedings does not appear to be called for at this stage.
3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record it has been found by this Court that the apprehension of respondent No,1 regarding breach of peace between the parties stemmed from his stance that he has been dispossessed by the petitioner in the year 1999 without due process of law but there is no convincing evidence available on the record of the present case regarding that foundational premise of respondent No,1. Although it had been asserted by respondent No,1 before the Inquiry Magistrate that he had been forcibly dispossessed by the petitioner but that verbal assertion of respondent No,1 was denied by the petitioner in his statement before the Inquiry Magistrate. Admittedly the matter of the said forcible dispossession had not been pursued before the relevant Revenue Authorities nor recourse had been made in that regard before the local police. It is admitted at all hands that ever since filing of the application under section 145, Cr.P.C. By respondent No,1 no untoward incident has taken place between the parties. In the absence of any convincing material regarding that foundational premise of respondent No,1 and in the admitted absence of any untoward incident taking place between the parties during the next four years continuance of the proceedings under section 145, Cr.P.C. At such a stage appears to be hardly called for at the present juncture. In a situation like this the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Qazi Gran v.
Muhammad Jan and another PLD 1996 SC 541 appear to be quite relevant. In the said judgment prolonged pendency of an application under section 145, Cr.P.C. In the absence of any untoward incident taking place between the parties was opined to be a valid ground for termination of such proceedings.
4. The provisions of section 145, Cr.P.C. Quite clearly envisage an apprehension regarding breach of peace as a jurisdictional requirement and the matter of possession is to be gone into by Magistrate only after such a jurisdictional requirement is satisfied. This is clearly borne out from the judgments in the cases of Mirza Abdul Razzaq v. Barkat Ali and others 1985 SCM R 1235 and Muhammad Khurshid Khan v. Asif Raza Mir and another PLD 1998 SC 123. Be that as it may even if such jurisdictional requirement was satisfied at the initial stages of the present case still the fact remains that the apprehension regarding breach of peace entertained by respondent No,1 had dissipated, if not disappeared, during the next four years and no untoward incident had taken place between the parties during that long period. In a situation like this the above mentioned judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Qazi Gran v. Muhammad Jan and another PLD 1996 SC 541 governed the situation and, thus, the learned Magistrate was quite justified in dismissing the application of respondent No,1 under section 145, Cr.P.C. On 23-9-2000.
For the same reason the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Wazirabad, District Gujranwala was not justified in remanding the matter to the learned Magistrate through the impugned judgment dated 7-11-2001 for determination of the question of possession of the parties at such a late stage.
It goes without saying that the parties have remedies available in that regard before the Civil as well as Revenue Courts. They can have recourse to those remedies in that respect, if so advised.
5. For what has been discussed above this petition is allowed and the impugned judgment passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Wazirabad, District Gujranwala on 7-11-2001 is hereby declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect and the same is set aside. There shall be no order as to costs.