Preamble --- Object and scope of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 --- Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, is a special enactment promulgated to discourage land grabbers and to protect right of owners and lawful occupants of property as against unauthorized and illegal occupants --- All cases of illegal occupants without any distinction are covered by Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005.
- Ss. 4 & 5 --- Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss. 154, 173, 190 & 200---Cognizance of offence --- Investigation and procedure --- “Cognizable case” and “private complaint” --- Distinction --- Trial of an accused under Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, cannot be equated as trial in a complaint case under S.190, Cr.P.C.--- Court, under S.5 of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, may order Incharge of Police Station to investigate the matter and report --- Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, itself is a special law and overrides provisions of Criminal Procedure Code, 1898, in terms of S.4 of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 --- Complaint under Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 can be equated as complaint under S.154, Cr.P.C., whereas report under S.5(1) of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, can be equated as report under S.173, Cr.P.C.---Trial Court on perusal of such report and other material can take cognizance as provided under S.190, Cr.P.C. but in no way the complaint under S.5(1) of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, can be equated with private complaint to be processed under S.200, Cr.P.C. before a Magistrate.
- Ss.2,3,4, & 5---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.200---Illegal Dispossession---Words “owner or occupier” in S.3, Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005---Definition---Trial proceedings---Scope---Trial Court entertained complaint filed against accused but High Court set aside the order on the ground that cognizance could only be taken by Trial Court following the procedure provided under S.200, Cr.P.C.---Validity---High Court erred in recording findings that examination of complainant under S.200, Cr.P.C. was mandatory before taking cognizance under Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005---Such findings of High Court were contrary to the language of Ss.2,3,4 and 5 of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005---High Court misdirected itself by holding that word “owner or occupier” defined in Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, did not include more than one owner and or occupier, meaning thereby that if property was jointly owned or jointly occupied by complainants they could not approach Trial Court by filing complaint under S.5 of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005---Order of taking cognizance by Trial Court was within the parameters of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, and introducing procedure under Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 for proceeding with a private complaint after examining the complainant under S.200, Cr.P.C. was foreign to the language of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005---Supreme Court set aside the judgment passed by High Court and remanded the matter to Trial Court for decision in accordance with law---Appeal was allowed.
Mst. Inayatan Khatoon and others
Versus
Muhammad Ramzan and others.
2012 S C M R 229