Summary: (a) Illegal Dispossession Act (XI of 2005)- -S.4-Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185 (3)-Leave to appeal was granted by Supreme Court to consider; whether a court exercising jurisdiction under Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, was empowered to examine question of title as to property or whether its jurisdiction was premised only upon act of illegal dispossession of person in possession; and whether complaint under Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, could only be filed against land grabbers and a person claiming bona fide title of property was not amenable to jurisdiction of court under Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, despite having dispossessed an occupant forcibly and without following due process of law. (b) Interpretation of statutes- -Preamble-Scope-Preamble of an Act does not govern provisions of that Act, if those are unambiguous and clear-Preamble can be taken into consideration in discovering purpose of the statute and aid can be taken in interpreting provisions of the Act, if they are ambiguous. (c) Words and phrases- -"No one"-Meaning: No person; nobody. Concise Oxford Dictionary rel. (d) Words and phrases- -"Whoever"-Meaning: Any person or persons. (e) Illegal Dispossession Act (XI of 2005)- -S. 3 & Preamble-Prevention of illegal possession of property'-Scope-Provision of S.3 of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, is very clear and unambiguous and its scope is wide enough to cover the class of persons mentioned in the Preamble-Preamble of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, cannot restrict its meaning and the Act is applicable to dispossession of a person from property by any person including land grabber, Qabza group or land mafia. (f) Illegal Dispossession Act (XI of 2005)- -S.3-Prevention of illegal possession of property-Words `dispossess', `grab', `control' and `occupy'-Connotation-Cognizance by court-Pre-conditions-For the purposes of attracting provisions of S.3 of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, court is required to examine as to whether property was an immovable property; secondly that the person was owner or the property was in his lawful possession; thirdly that accused entered into or upon the property unlawfully; fourthly that such entry was with intention to dispossess i.e. ouster, evict or deriving out of possession against the will of person in actual possession or to grab i.e. capture, seize suddenly, take greedily or unfairly, or to control i.e. to exercise power or influence over regulate or govern or relates to authority over what is not in one's physical possession or to occupy i.e. holding possession, reside in or something-Meaning of the words clearly demonstrate that if anybody controls or holds unlawful or illegal possession of the property at the time of enactment then he would come within the ambit of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005-Complaint can validly be filed against such person by the occupier or owner of the property-If act of accused comes within the meaning of any of the words viz. dispossess, grab, control or occupy on the date when Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, was promulgated then action can be initiated as provided under S.4 of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. Concise Oxford Dictionary; Merritt's Estate, 46 N.Y.S.2d, 497, 505; Black's Law Dictionary and People v. Wilkinson, 56 Cal. Rptr.261, 264., 246 C.A. 2d. Supp.906 rel. (g) Illegal Dispossession Act (XI of 2005)- -Ss. 3 & 4-Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.145-Illegal dispossession-Criminal proceedings-Question of title-Jurisdiction of court-For the purpose of examining question of title in respect of property, court has to simply form opinion as to whether prima facie any party is coming within the ambit of definition mentioned in S. 3 of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005-If court forms such opinion from material placed before it, then it can proceed with matter or otherwise, as the case may be-Similar procedure is adopted by Magistrate, while exercising powers conferred upon him under S.145 Cr. P. C., which is normally required to be adopted in such proceedings. Shah Muhammad v. Haq Nawaz PLD 1970 SC 470 rel. (h) Illegal Dispossession Act (XI of 2005)- -Ss 3 & 4-Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.441-Illegal dispossession-Restoration-Pendency of civil litigation-Effect-Appellant claimed to be the owner of plot in question and alleged that respondents had dispossessed him from the plot-Before filing of application under S. 4 of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, there was civil litigation between the parties in which their titles were questioned and status quo order was passed by the court-During pendency of civil litigation, proceedings under S. 4 of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, were initiated-Validity-Offence of illegal dispossession as provided under S.3 of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, was aggravated form of offence under S.441 P.P.C., therefore, it could not be said that act of dispossession was a new offence under Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005-As question of title of property was already pending before competent court of civil jurisdiction before filing of the complaint, therefore, Supreme Court declined to interfere in the matter-After decision of civil suit in favour of appellant, he could approach the court under S.4 of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005-Appeal was dismissed. Zahoor Ahmed v. State PLD 2007 Lah.231; Noor Zada v. Muhammad Khalid 2007 PCr.LJ 891; A.G. v. H.R.H. Prince Augustus 1957-1 All England Law Reporters page 49; Pakistan Railway v. Abdul Haqique 1991 SCMR 657; Shaukat Baig v. Shahid Jamil PLD 2005 SC 530; Rahim Tahir v. Ahmed Jan PLD 2007 SC 423; Muhammad Safdar v. Edward Henry Louis PLD 2009 SC 404; Muhammad Akram v. Muhammad Yousaf 2009 SCMR 1066 and Khan Asfandyar Wali v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 2001 SC 607 ref. Rahim Tahir v. Ahmed Jan PLD 2007 SC 423 and Muhammad Safdar v. Edward Henry Louis PLD 2009 SC 404 rel. Per Khilji Arif Hussain, J:- (i) Interpretation of statutes- -Preamble-Scope-Preamble of an Act does not control or govern the Act and is not an enacting part of the Act but may recite the ground and cause of making that statute, if provisions of the Act are clear and unambiguous. (j) Interpretation of statutes- -Intention of Legislature-Scope-While interpreting an Act, the intent of Legislature is of supreme importance-Cardinal rule of construction of Acts of Parliament is that the words of the Act should be construed according to intention expressed in the Acts themselves-Word"intent" essentially include two concepts: That of purpose and that of meaning-In many cases the court endeavours to ascertain legislative purpose but only as a step in process of discovering legislative intent and it is possible that legislative intent and legislative purpose may coincide-Law maker may have several purposes in mind when they enact a given law and the fact which can be taken into account in ascertaining intention of Legislature is history of the Act, reason which led to passing of the Act, mischief which had to be cured, as well as cure proposed and also other provisions of the statute-Legislative intent can always be gathered either from express language of Statute or by necessary implications-If words of Statute are themselves clear and unambiguous, no more is necessary to expound those words in their natural and ordinary sense, the words themselves in such a case best declare the intentions of Legislature-Objects made Reasons of a Statute is to be looked into as an extrinsic aid to find out legislative intent only when the meaning of Statute by its ordinary language is obscure or ambiguous-If words used in a Statute are clear and unambiguous and Statute itself describes intention of Legislature then in such case, it would not be permissible for court to interpret Statute by examining Object and Reasons of Statute. Pepper Inspector of Taxes v. Hart (1993)1 All ER 42 and AIR 1952 SC 369 ref. (k) Interpretation of statutes- -Construction of statute-Principle-Method of construction of statute is not to take particular words and give them a preconceived meaning, which one may have to displace or modify-Statute is to be read as a whole and ask oneself the question, in this statute, in this context, relating to the subject matter, what is the true meaning of the word-Statute is not open to construct as a matter of course, it is open only where language used in Statute requires interpretation i.e. where the Statute is ambiguous or bears two or more constructions or is of such doubtful obscure meaning that reasonable minds might be uncertain or disagree as to its meaning. (l) Illegal Dispossession Act (XI of 2005)- -S.3-Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S.9.,-Illegal dispossession-Remedy-`Qabza group' and `land grabbers'-Scope-Remedy under S. 9, Specific Relief Act, 1877, is admissible to any person (whether owner or otherwise), who has been dispossessed from premises in his possession without due process of law-Remedy under Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, cannot be restricted only against `Qabza group'-If it is accepted that remedy under Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, is available only against professional land grabbers, though Statute has not defined what is meant by `land grabbers' or `Qabza group' then a person, who illegally and unlawfully grabs or dispossesses or occupies property from a lawful owner for the first time, cannot be prosecuted under Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, merely because there is no such previous history of him to call him a man professionally engaged in the activity of land grabbing.

Summary: (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)- S. 441-Criminal trespass, offence of-Criminal trespass, held, could be committed even in absence of occupier of premises in terms of proviso to S. 441, P. P. C. Badruddin v. The State and another 1977 P Cr. L J 89; K azi Taj Mohammad v. The State P L D 1962 Kar. 330; Nazir v. The State P L D 1974 Kar. 96; Ibrahim and 3 others v. The State 1971 S C M R 25 and Nabi Shah v. The State N L R 1980 A C 62 ref. (b) Criminal trial- - Delay in filing complaint, effect of-After discovery of offence several attempts made to get case registered by sending applications to Station House Officer and also by making representation to Superintendent of Police and private complaint filed, as a last resort-Delay in filing complaint, held, sufficiently explained in circumstances and trial Court erred in holding that complaint filed with delay.-[Complaint Delay). Nazir v. The State P L D 1974 Kar. 96 ref. Jalaluddin Baloch for the State. Dates of hearing: 2nd and 3rd February, 1982.

Summary: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) — Ss. 249-A, 190 & 561-A — Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199 — Quashment of FIR — Allegation of criminal trespass into State land — Political victimization — FIR registered under Ss. 447, 448/34, P.P.C. after delay of five years from initial land retrieval process — Allegations vague, unsupported, and without specific attribution of intent required under S. 441, P.P.C. — Petitioner, a sitting MNA and opposition alliance leader, was not named in any prior official correspondence and no specific role assigned in FIR — Held, no prima facie material existed to justify continuation of proceedings — FIR registered and proceedings initiated without lawful authority and were quashed. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) — Ss. 441, 447 & 448 — Elements of criminal trespass — Essential requirement of dominant intent to commit offence, intimidate, insult, or annoy person in possession — Mere unauthorized entry without requisite mens rea does not attract S. 441 — Held, residential plot did not qualify as “house” under S. 442, hence offence under S. 448 not attracted — FIR contained no assertion of annoyance or intimidation of any specific occupant — Alleged act, if any, amounted at most to civil trespass — Criminal process cannot be used to settle civil disputes or for political motives. Malik Muhammad Zameer v. Shamim Akhtar 2006 PCr.LJ 539; Abdul Razzaq v. SHO 2008 PCr.LJ 812; Kazi Taj Muhammad v. The State PLD 1962 Karachi 330; Olga Tellis case AIR 1986 SC 180 ref. (c) Constitution of Pakistan — Art. 199(1)(a)(ii) — Judicial review of administrative action — Police officers performing functions under provincial law are amenable to writ jurisdiction — Registration of FIR and investigation are subject to scrutiny where found to be without lawful authority — High Court may quash proceedings to prevent abuse of law and miscarriage of justice — Held, in absence of intent and evidence, registration of FIR was abuse of process — Judicial Magistrate's refusal to quash proceedings under S. 249-A Cr.P.C. was unjustified and liable to be set aside. FIA v. Syed Hamid Ali Shah PLD 2023 SC 265; State v. Ashiq Ali Bhutto 1993 SCMR 523; Miraj Khan v. Gul Ahmed 2000 SCMR 122 ref. (d) Criminal law — Arrest — Principles for arresting nominated accused — Police not to arrest a person solely based on nomination in FIR — Investigating officer must collect sufficient material to justify arrest — Held, in absence of such material, arrest or continuation of proceedings is unwarranted — FIR, lodged without credible basis or proof of criminal intent, was rightly quashed to avoid futile trial and wastage of court resources. Sughra Bibi v. The State PLD 2018 SC 595 ref. Disposition: Petition allowed. FIR No. 43/2024 registered under Ss. 447, 448/34, P.P.C. and all proceedings arising therefrom to the extent of the petitioner declared unlawful and quashed. Order of Judicial Magistrate dated 10-05-2024 set aside.