Mst. Shaheen vs State Ss — 2026 PCrLJ 755 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

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

Mst. Shaheen VS State Ss. 3, 4 & 7---Illegal dispossession---Delivery of possession of property to owner---Scope---Appeal had been filed by the accused against the impugned direction of the Trial Court, whereby they were ordered to vacate the possession of the house within a period of 15 days---Held: Question before the Court was as to whether, in the given facts and circumstances of the case especially in light of the acquittal of the accused due to failure of the complainant to establish the alleged dispossession in the required mode, manner or standard of evidence, the Trial Court was justified in directing that possession of the house be restored to the complainant---Official of Police Post had stated that both parties had produced documents regarding ownership of the house and it was specifically reported that Mst. "S", wife of accused "AA" had claimed that two rooms of the disputed house were given to her as dower---Said portion was in their possession and that the utility bills for electricity and gas were in the name of "AA"---In her complaint, the complainant also alleged that, during proceedings under S.145 Cr.P.C, the accused side produced forged, bogus and fictitious documents to falsely claim ownership---Parties were closely related, the complainant and the accused "AA" were real sister and brother---Prima facie, the complainant had claimed ownership of the disputed house on the basis of a registered sale deed dated 07.02.1991, showing its purchase from one "Z" Shah for a consideration of Rs.60,000/-, however, there also existed a document dated 03.07.2004, whereby the complainant allegedly sold the said property to her mother---In addition to that, other documents, produced by the parties in support of their respective claims to ownership, were disputed and controverted---Such facts gave rise to a question of joint ownership, which could not be conclusively determined in these criminal proceedings---Determination of ownership did not fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Court under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, as such matter laid solely within the domain of the Civil Court, whereby all the questions qua title of the house might be agitated---Even otherwise, in cases such as the present one, for the restoration of possession under S.8 of the Act of 2005, the conviction of the accused under subsection(2) or subsection(3) of the Act was a sine qua non and without conviction of the accused i.e., alleged dispossessor or illegal occupants, the restoration of possession could not be ordered---Thus, the Trial Court, while acquitting the accused of the charges, had erred in directing the restoration of possession of the property without properly evaluating the evidence on record in juxtaposition, hence, to that extent, the impugned findings were not sustainable in the eyes of law---Appeal was allowed, accordingly.

Mst. Shaheen vs State Ss — 2026 PCrLJ 755 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2026 PCRLJ