Find a Lawyer

Criminal Miscellaneous No. 199/Q of 1984, decided on 28th October, 1984.

-‑‑S. 561‑A‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1360), Ss. 426, 468, 467 & 471‑‑Accused vendor selling land through registered sale‑deed to complainant before acquisition by Government‑‑Mutations in favour of complainant not yet sanctioned‑‑Land Acquisition Collector preparing Dhal Bachh in favour of complainant for disbursement of compensation as he was admittedly vendee from accused‑‑‑Accused making application to Board of Revenue for receiving entire compensation as in revenue record vendor accused was indicated as sole owner of acquired property, which was allowed and accused received compensation under final award‑‑Complainant's application before Assistant Commissioner for payment of compensation to him dismissed‑‑Complainant lodging report that accused had already :Sold land to him and others and in spite of that he fraudulently received compensation of acquired land and that he had prepared false documents to get compensation Complainant admitting to have received entire compensation of respective acquired land alongwith interest from accused‑‑Complainant pressing criminal proceedings only to get his share of 15 per cent compulsory acquisition charges already received by accused and ready to withdraw complaint after getting such charges‑ Criminal proceedings, held, pressed into service only to settle civil dispute between parties, which amounted to gross abuse of process of Court‑‑Criminal proceedings quashed in circumstances.

Akbar Ali. v. Julian H. Dinshaw and others 1971 S C M R 613 rel.

---S.561‑A‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.420, 468, 467 & 471‑‑Quashing of proceedings‑‑Allegations made against accused even if assumed to be true disclosing no offence against him‑‑Criminal proceedings, held, could not be allowed to continue in circumstances.

Superintendent of Police, F.I.A. Lahore and another v. Akhtar Hussain Bhutta P L D 1978 S C 193 rel.

(c) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑

---S.561‑A‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 420, 468, 467 & 471.‑‑Mala fide‑‑Matter between parties amicably settled by three arbitrators‑ Complainant had already received compensation but wanted criminal proceedings to continue so that he would be able to recover 15 per cent compulsory land acquisition charges from accused‑‑Proceedings kept pending with mala fide intention as a coercive measure‑‑Proceedings quashed.

Z.M. Zafar, Sardar Khalid Mehmood. M. Bilal and Syed Zahid Hussain for Petitioner.

Shafiq‑ur‑Rehman for the State.

Mushtaq Ali Tahirkheli for the Complainant.

Date of hearing: 28th October, 1984.

This is a petition by Muhammad Shafi for quashment of proceedings in a case pertaining to F.I.R. No.226, dated 23‑5‑1983, Police Station City Kasur, under section 420/467/468/471, P.P.C. pending in the Court of Mr. Ishtiaq Ali, Magistrate Section 30, Kasur. The case was registered on 23‑5‑1983 at 3.20 p.m. at the instance of Ghulam Rasool son of Karam Din. Before coming to this Court the petitioner moved an application under section 249‑A, Cr.P.C. but the same was dismissed by the learned trial Magistrate on 23‑7‑1984.

2. Brief facts of the case are that a notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 29‑10‑1976 in order to initiate proceedings for acquisition of 206 Kanals and 15 Marlas of land for construction of District Headquarters Hospital at Kasur. Out of this 70 Kanals and 3 Marlas of land was owned by Muhammad Shafi petitioner. There was some representation by the residents of the locality objecting to the suitability of the said land for construction of the hospital. Subsequently, another notification under section 4 was issued on 21‑2‑1977 for acquisition of some other land for the same purpose. However, the earlier notification dated 29‑10‑1976 was hot denotified and, as such, the proceedings of acquisition of the said land continued according to law. In the initial award, the Land Acquisition Collector assessed Rs.66 per marla as compensation of the land sought to be acquired vide first notification dated 29‑10‑1976. The Government took possession of the said land on 20‑2‑1979. Muhammad Shafi petitioner challenged the amount of compensation at Rs.66 per marla and went upto the Supreme Court in that effort. As a result of the said litigation, the rate of compensation was enhanced to Rs.1,016.74 per marla on 1‑7‑1982. Muhammad Shafi petitioner had sold some land to Ch. Ghulam Rasool and Haji Mehr Allah Ditta on 3‑2‑1976 i.e. before the notification under section 4 dated 29‑10‑1976 and some more land to Sher Muhammad, Rehmat Ali, Barkat Ali, Muhammad Siddiq, Barkat Ali son of Mehr Din, Muhammad Bashir, Khushi Muhammad, Muhammad Hussain and Ahmad Din after the above‑mentioned notification. They had purchased land from Muhammad Shafi vide registered sale‑deeds but the mutations had not been sanctioned in their favour. The Land Acquisition Collector prepared Dhal Bachh in favour of Ghulam Rasool etc. for disbursement of compensation as they were admittedly the vendees from Muhammad A Shafi. It appears that Muhammad Shafi made an application to the Board; of Revenue claiming that he was owner entitled to receive the entire compensation because in the revenue records he was indicated as they sole owner of the acquired property. On 18‑12‑1982, the learned Member, Board of Revenue, allowed this petition, whereafter on 20‑12‑1982, Muhammad Shafi petitioner received compensation under the final award dated 19‑12‑1982. At this Ghulam Rasool etc., the above‑mentioned vendees, on 26‑12‑1982 made an application to the Assistant Commissioner Kasur for payment of compensation but the said application was disallowed on 30‑12‑1982. It was at this stage that Ghulam Rasool complainant lodged the F.I.R on 23‑5‑1983 on the basis of which the above referred to case was registered and Muhammad Shafi was challaned in Court. It was alleged in the F.I.R. that Muhammad Shafi had already sold land to Ghulam Rasool complainant and others; that in spite of the said sale Muhammad Shafi accused fraudulently received the compensation of the acquired land and that he had prepared false documents to get the said compensation. The police after investigation challaned the accused and the proceedings are pending trial before the Magistrate as stated above.

3. In support of this petition, it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that it was a case of civil nature; that after the registration of the case, the parties entered into a compromise and the matter was settled between them by the three arbitrators namely, Malik Muhammad Ashiq, Mian Muhammad Shafi and Ch. Muhammad Ashraf, on 30‑7‑1983, and in the said settlement Muhammad Shafi petitioner paid the compensation amount, received by him, to Ghulam Rasool etc. vendees. It was, therefore, argued that the present case should have been withdrawn by Ghulam Rasool etc. as per terms of the award by the three arbitrators (Annexure 'J') on this file. It was further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in accordance with the award dated 29‑7‑1983 (Annexure 'J'), the complainant Ghulam Rasool etc. were to appear before the Sub‑Registrar on 30‑7‑1983 but they refused to appear before him on that date on the plea that they should first be paid interest amount as per award of the three arbitrators. At this a son of the present petitioner paid the compensation amount at the rate of Rs.1,100 instead of the awarded rate of Rs.1,016.74 to finally settle the matter with Ghulam Rasool etc. The excess amount over and above Rs.1,016.74 was paid by way of the interest, by a son of Muhammad Shafi petitioner to Ghulam Rasool etc. vendees. It was, therefore, submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the present proceedings pending against Muhammad Shafi petitioner were the result of mala fides and without any basis. It was further submitted that Ghulam Rasool etc. vendees now wish to coerce Muhammad Shafi petitioner in order to extract more money from him.

4. Learned counsel for Ghulam Rasool etc. vendees admitted the arbitration award dated 29‑7‑1983 (Annexure 'J'). He also admitted the receipt of compensation at the rate of Rs.1,100 per marla by Ghulam Rasool etc. vendees from Muhammad Shafi in accordance with the writing (Annexure 'K') of Malik Muhammad Ashiq, Chairman, Municipal Committee, Kasur, who was also one of the three arbitrators. It was admitted by him that Ghulam Rasool etc. vendees have received the entire compen sation alongwith the interest from Muhammad Shafi. However, learned counsel contended that Ghulam Rasool etc. vendees were entitled to receive 15 per cent as compulsory acquisition charges from Muhammad Shafi as he had received the same amount from the Land Acquisition authorities. It was stated by the learned counsel that Tariq Shafi, a son of Muhammad Shafi petitioner, had agreed to pay the said amount of 15 per cent compulsory acquisition charges to Ghulam Rasool etc. and he, in fact, had executed an agreement in favour of the vendees. On the basis of this, it was argued by the learned counsel that the proceedings should not be quashed.

5. I have considered the above arguments of the learned counsel for the parties at great length and have also perused the record of this case. A detailed narration of the facts given above would indicate that Ghulam Rasool etc. vendees have already received the entire compensation of their respective acquired land alongwith the interest from Muhammad Shafi petitioner. They are pressing this criminal proceedings only to get their share of 15 per cent compulsory acquisition charges already received by Muhammad Shafi petitioner. Ghulam Rasool etc. vendees were all present in Court today. They have admitted this position and stated before me that they will withdraw from the criminal proceedings only after they have received 15 per cent compulsory acquisition charges from Muhammad Shafi on the basis of an agreement executed by Tariq Shafi, a son of the present petitioner in their favour. I am, therefore, of the view that these criminal proceedings are being pressed into service only to settle a civil dispute between the parties. This amounts to gross abuse of the process of Court which cannot be allowed. If Ghulam Rasool etc. vendees have any claim against Muhammad Shafi or his son under the alleged agreement, they can enforce their right in a Court of competent jurisdiction in civil proceedings. No party can be permitted to use criminal proceedings as coercive measure to enforce a civil right. From the facts and circum stances of this case, the dispute between the parties appears to be purely of civil nature and, as such, cannot be allowed to be agitated in criminal proceedings. Reliance for this view is placed on Akbar Ali v. Julian H. Dinshaw and others 1971 S C M R 613.

I am of the view that from the allegations contained in the F.I.R. no criminal liability can be said to have been made out against Muhammad Shafi petitioner. The challan submitted against Muhammad Shafi petitioner, therefore, "contains no allegations as accusations, which if allowed to go to trial even remotely is likely to end up in conviction. Whatever allegations have been made against the accused; even if assumed to be true disclose no offence against him." As such, the criminal B proceedings cannot be allowed to continue. Reliance in this behalf is placed on Superintendent of Police, F.I.A. Lahore and another v. Akhtar Hussain Bhutta P L D 1978 S C 193. As stated above, Ghulam Rasool etc. vendees want these proceedings to continue so that they are able to recover 15 per cent compulsory land acquisition charges from Muhammad Shafi petitioner. The matter between the parties was amicably settled by the three arbitrators vide award dated 29‑7‑1979. In this view of the matter, I find that the present proceedings against Muhammad C Shafi are sought to be kept pending with mala fides as a coercive measure.

6. In view of the above, this petition is accepted. The proceedings pending in the Court of Mr. Ishtiaq Ali, Magistrate Section 30, Kasur against Muhammad Shafi petitioner under F. I. R. No. 226, dated 23‑5‑1983, Police Station City Kasur are quashed.

M. A. K. Proceedings quashed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.