Summary: (a) Criminal Law – Section 145 Cr.P.C. – Dispute Over Possession – Joint Ownership –– ---- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 – Section 145 – Petitioner and Respondent No. 1 were joint allottees of a commercial property as per CDA records – Magistrate’s order granting exclusive possession to Respondent No. 1 was illegal and beyond the scope of Section 145 Cr.P.C. – Held, Section 145 is inapplicable where parties are in joint possession, as the provision is only meant to address disputes over exclusive possession leading to breach of peace – Reliance placed on Md. Askir Mia vs. Md. Ayubullah (1971 P Cr. L J 420) and Provincial Government vs. Bhivram Nanhya Mahar (AIR 1940 Nagpur 265). (b) Possession Disputes – When Magistrate Can Exercise Jurisdiction Under Section 145 Cr.P.C. –– ---- Jurisdiction of Magistrate under Section 145 Cr.P.C. – Held, proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. are not maintainable where both parties claim joint possession – Magistrate can exercise jurisdiction only when one party is found to be in exclusive possession and another forcibly takes over the property – Case law affirms that Section 145 Cr.P.C. cannot be invoked where both parties admit joint ownership and joint possession – Reliance placed on Gul Zada vs. Hazrat Gul (PLD 2024 Peshawar 35) and Arbab Muhammad Khan vs. Arbab Muhammad Hasham Khan (PLD 1959 Peshawar 193). (c) Civil vs. Criminal Proceedings – When Criminal Proceedings Should Be Stayed –– ---- Pending Civil Suit and Criminal Proceedings Under Section 145 Cr.P.C. – Held, where a civil suit is already pending regarding possession, the Magistrate should not interfere under Section 145 Cr.P.C. – Proper course is to refer the matter to the civil court rather than deciding possessory rights summarily – Reliance placed on Mukhteyar Alam vs. The State (2017 PCr.LJ 684) and Ch. Ghalib Hussain vs. Muhammad Siddique (2013 MLD 749). (d) Breach of Peace – When Magistrate Can Act Under Other Provisions of Cr.P.C. –– ---- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 – Sections 107, 144, 151 – Held, where joint owners are in possession but there is apprehension of breach of peace, the Magistrate should invoke Sections 107, 144, or 151 Cr.P.C. instead of Section 145 Cr.P.C. – Magistrate exceeded jurisdiction by ordering exclusive possession to one party instead of maintaining peace – Reliance placed on Abdus Salam Miaji vs. Abdul Kadir Bepari (PLD 1967 Dacca 715). (e) Wrongful Dispossession – Two-Month Limitation Under Section 145(4) Cr.P.C. –– ---- Time Barred Claims Under Section 145 Cr.P.C. – Respondent No. 1 alleged dispossession on 18-07-2022, but proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. were initiated on 6-2-2023, i.e., more than six months later – Held, under Section 145(4) Cr.P.C., the complaint must be filed within two months of dispossession – Magistrate’s order granting exclusive possession to Respondent No. 1 violated statutory time limits – Reliance placed on Muhammad Yaqoob Malik vs. District & Sessions Judge (2004 YLR 2383) and Sirajul Haque vs. Mst. Malka Bibi (2002 MLD 1989). (f) Misinterpretation of Partnership Deed – No Exclusive Possession Clause –– ---- Partnership Agreement Misconstrued – The Partnership Deed did not grant exclusive possession of the subject property to Respondent No. 1 – It only authorized Respondent No. 1 to construct the Shopping Mall, but did not require exclusive possession – Held, Magistrate and Sessions Judge erred in treating the Partnership Deed as a basis for granting exclusive possession – Reliance placed on Saleem-Ur-Rehman vs. Faqir Hussain (2004 SCMR 667). (g) Concurrent Findings – When High Court Can Interfere –– ---- Judicial Review of Lower Court’s Findings – Held, High Court can interfere with concurrent findings where they are based on misreading of evidence, jurisdictional overreach, or erroneous legal interpretations – Magistrate’s and Sessions Judge’s orders were contrary to settled principles of law under Section 145 Cr.P.C. – Reliance placed on Abdul Khaliq vs. Muhammad Shafique (2007 SCMR 1953) and Sultan Room vs. Bakht Karam (2010 MLD 1669). (h) Disposition – High Court’s Directions –– ---- Writ Petition Allowed – Magistrate’s and Sessions Judge’s Orders Set Aside – Possession of Commercial Plot No.11, Sector I-8 Markaz, Islamabad restored jointly to Petitioner and Respondent No. 1 – Magistrate directed to invoke alternative provisions (Sections 107, 144, 151 Cr.P.C.) if breach of peace is apprehended instead of applying Section 145 Cr.P.C. Disposition: ---- Writ Petition allowed – Orders of Magistrate and Sessions Judge set aside – Possession restored jointly to both parties – Magistrate directed to handle breach of peace concerns under appropriate Cr.P.C. provisions instead of Section 145 Cr.P.C..

Summary: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) ----Ss. 145, 561-A----Disputed possession when civil litigation is pending---Subservience of s.145 Cr.P.C. to orders of Civil Court---Parties were already before the Civil Court regarding the disputed property and a status-quo order had been passed---Held, when title/possession is sub judice before a Civil Court, proceedings under s.145 Cr.P.C. are not sustainable; the criminal court must stay its hands and cannot render findings that may conflict with the Civil Court’s determination---The learned Additional Sessions Judge rightly interfered with the Magistrate’s sealing order, noting the pendency of civil suits and status-quo; no illegality shown warranting exercise of inherent jurisdiction under s.561-A---Petition under s.561-A, Cr.P.C., dismissed as misconceived. Cited cases: Muhammad Akbar v. The State PLD 1968 SC 281; Shah Muhammad v. Haq Nawaz PLD 1970 SC 470. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) ----Ss. 107/151, 145----Preventive jurisdiction and breach of peace---Scope---Where apprehension of breach of peace exists but civil proceedings over the same property are pending and regulated by orders of the Civil Court, the proper recourse is to bind down parties under ss.107/151 Cr.P.C.; attachment, sealing, or delivery of possession under s.145 is impermissible in such circumstances---Criminal process cannot be used to overreach or nullify civil orders. (c) Appellate/revisional oversight over Magistrate’s orders under s.145 Cr.P.C.----Standard of interference---Where the Magistrate proceeds under s.145 despite the matter being seized by the Civil Court, the revisional court is justified in setting aside such action to prevent conflict of decisions and to preserve the primacy of civil adjudication on title/possession---No material irregularity or legal infirmity demonstrated in the impugned revisional order; interference declined under s.561-A. Petition dismissed.