Order for termination of orders 133, 140 and 561, the petitioner for the complainant / respondent in the complaint filed under section 133, had alleged that the applicant had approached the metal road constructed by the irrigation department for approx. The forty-five years ago, the demolition of the land property had caused the complainant and the petitioner complainant through such demolition. Approved the complaint and allowed the complaint and issued a conditional order under Section 140, CR PC, which maintains Was gone In the review of the Additional Sessions Judge, Syed's order sought to remove the evidence by the petitioner, which is to say that through the evidence it has been fully proved that it has been used by ordinary people for more than four decades. The petitioner himself had demolished a section of the metalled road. Acknowledged that the underground route was used by the general public and did not create any suspicion In the applicant's own defense statement, he clearly made it clear that he had demolished the route so that the respondent could not have any contact with the complainant. The complaint was declared conditional on the score being determined and the public suffered in the judicial magistrate in the process. Approved by the Judicial Magistrate, which was confirmed by the amending court, the petitioner was not challenged before the High Forums, which placed lower-order restraining orders, not to deal with the complaint, but rather mechanically. The evidence on record could not be interfered with
Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2012
