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.

Summary: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)–––Ss. 22-A & 22-B–––Application for registration of FIR–––Scope and limitations of jurisdiction of Ex-Officio Justice of Peace–––Petitioner filed an application under Sections 22-A & 22-B, Cr.P.C., seeking direction for registration of FIR against certain police officials and private individuals allegedly involved in unlawful dispossession, criminal intimidation, and abuse of authority–––Learned Ex-Officio Justice of Peace dismissed the application on the ground that no cognizable offence was made out–––Held, that jurisdiction under Sections 22-A & 22-B, Cr.P.C. is supervisory in nature and does not empower the Justice of Peace to hold a detailed inquiry or assess veracity of the complaint–––However, such jurisdiction is also not to be exercised mechanically; the Justice of Peace is required to determine, from the record and police report, whether the information prima facie discloses a cognizable offence–––In the present case, reports submitted by the Superintendent of Police and SHO indicated that the dispute was of civil nature concerning possession of land allegedly purchased by the proposed accused in 2017, and preventive action had already been taken under Sections 107/151, Cr.P.C.–––No material was produced by the petitioner to rebut this position–––Held, that the learned Justice of Peace committed no illegality in declining direction for registration of FIR when no cognizable offence was disclosed from record. (b) Constitution of Pakistan–––Art. 199–––Supervisory jurisdiction of High Court–––Interference with discretionary orders–––High Court observed that where an order of Ex-Officio Justice of Peace is based on due consideration of police record and factual assessment, it does not warrant interference under constitutional jurisdiction–––Finding of the trial Court that the dispute was essentially civil in nature was duly supported by the official reports–––No violation of law, arbitrariness, or procedural irregularity was shown–––Interference by High Court declined. (c) Administration of justice–––Registration of FIR–––Duty of police–––Although under Section 154, Cr.P.C., police are bound to register FIR when information discloses a cognizable offence, such obligation does not extend to situations where the matter relates to civil ownership or possession dispute without criminal intent–––Refusal to register FIR, in such circumstances, held justified. Disposition: Petition dismissed.