IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH CIRCUIT COURT LARKANA

Criminal Misc. Application No. S-429 of 2021

Ahmed Ali Brohi & another

vs.

The State

For the Applicant / Accused       :         Mr. Ali Dino Abro, Advocate

Mr. Ahmed Ali Brohi        Applicant

For the Prosecution / State       :         Mr. Aitbar Ali Bullo

Deputy Prosecutor General

Date of hearing                         :         13.01.2022

Date of announcement              :         13.01.2022

ORDER

Agha Faisal, J.     Present Criminal Misc. Application has impugned the order dated 28.08.2021 delivered in Cr. Misc. Application No.29 of 2021 by the court of the learned II-Additional Sessions Judge, Larkana. It is illustrative to reproduce the order here in below:-

Heard counsels for the complainant and perused the record including reports submitted by the S.H.O P.S Kanga and Mukhtiarkar Taluka Larkana.

From the perusal of reports submitted by the S.H.O P.S Kanga and Mukhtiarkar Taluka Larkana so also material placed on record, it appears that prima facie case for taking cognizance under the relevant provisions of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, is made out. Let the instant miscellaneous criminal complaint be brought on regular file while assigning Sessions case number. Issue bailable warrants to accused namely Ahmed Ali and Ghulam Hyder, in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (fifty thousands) each with P.R bond in the like amount.

2. Learned counsel submits that the impugned order may be set-aside as civil proceedings are pending between the parties and even otherwise the applicant is not in possession of the property in question.

3. The learned Deputy Prosecutor General supports the impugned order and submits that it is in due consonance with the law.

4. Heard and perused.

5. The impugned order demonstrates that the learned trial court has taken cognizance of an offence which prima facie appears to have been made out there before. No cavil has been articulated with respect to the procedure followed culminating in the action of the learned trial court. Pendency of a civil suit is no bar on proceedings commencing under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 and even otherwise it is the dispossession that is under challenge immaterial of whether or not the person accused of having committed the offence remains in possession of the property or not.

6. In view of foregoing, no case has made out for interference in the impugned order. Criminal Misc. application is dismissed.

JUDGE