Noor Khan vs State S — 2025 YLR 62 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

Noor Khan VS State S. 3---Illegal dispossession---Scope---Petitioner was aggrieved of Trial Court's order whereby his complaint filed under S. 3 of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, was dismissed---Validity---Petitioner alleged that after a legal partition of the joint khata, he along with his family members was in possession of a particular land being its owners; that respondents armed with hatchets, clubs and firearm weapons, dispossessed the petitioner from land measuring 08 Kanals 18 Marlas situated in Killa Nos. 21 and 3 Kanals and 09 Marlas in Killa No. 22, total land measuring 12 Kanals 07 Marlas---During the occurrence, both the parties sustained injuries, upon which, respondent No. 2 lodged FIR under Ss. 337-A(iv), 324, 337-L(2), 337-F(vi), 354, 337-A(i), 148 & 149, P.P.C, against the petitioner and seven others, wherein, cross-version of the petitioner's side was also recorded---Petitioner's party was arrested in said FIR and respondent party destroyed their millet and maize crops and illegally took over the possession of 12 Kanals and 07 Marlas land---Held, that on receiving complaint, Court was bound to ascertain the truth and falsehood of the allegation, through inquiry and/or investigation---Inquiry and investigation were not mutually exclusive, Court could resort to both proceedings one after another---Investigation process provide both the complainant and respondents with an opportunity to be heard as part of the process of determining the validity of an allegation---This generally triggers rights of due process under the law on how to address allegations---Thus, that is the reason an investigation is necessary or essential because it is conducted for collection of evidence and parties have full opportunity to produce every sort of material legally admissible or not---In such way issues are narrowed down by investigator with an opinion for and against the commission of offence and Court is loaded with tangible evidence as well---In the present case, Court had neither conducted the inquiry properly nor ordered for investigation, so much so on the day of dispossession FIR was also registered with corresponding cross version but Court did not even bother to summon the police record despite the fact that motive of the occurrence was dispossession---Court had also not attended the fact that possession was handed over to the complainant through warrant of possession issued by a competent authority---Petition was allowed by setting aside the impugned order, with the direction that complaint filed by the petitioner shall be deemed pending and Trial Court after feeling the necessity either of investigation or inquiry, if any, shall proceed with the complaint in due course of law as delineated above.

Noor Khan vs State S — 2025 YLR 62 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 YLR