When complaint for illegal dispossession is not competent

Citation Name  : 2012  PCrLJ  581     LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : Mst. NEELAM PARVEEN
Side Opponent : State
	Ss 3 & 4---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), 5.200---Prevention of illegal possession of property---Complaint against---Claim of the petitioner/complainant was that she was widow of owner of disputed property and that after the death of her husband, she remained in touch with the property till 1995, but thereafter, the respondents/accused had grabbed her land with connivance of previous owners---Respondents/accused also claimed themselves to be the bona fide purchasers of the disputed land through mutation sanctioned in their favour after fulfilling all the legal requirements---Matter in issue, in circumstances, seemed to be a civil dispute between the parties and petitioner could get her possessionrestored by setting the civil law into motion---Best way for the petitioner was to file civil suit for restorationof her ownership or the alleged possession and not institution of private complaint under Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005---Petitioner had herself admitted in her private complaint that she was not in physical possession of land in dispute and the allegation levelled by her that she was dispossessed by using force, was altogether contrary to the facts of the case---Respondents possessed mutation in their favour, which had shown that they did not belong to Qabza group or were hardened criminals---Even the contentsof the complaint, instituted by the petitioner, did not have any such allegations, which fell within the ambit ofS.3 of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005---No jurisdictional infirmity, illegality of approach, irregularity ofprocedure or perversity of reasoning had been found, so as to warrant interference of High Court in revision in the impugned order---Petition was declined.