Find a Lawyer

Criminal Miscellaneous No. 628/Q of 1974, decided on 18th March 1975.

‑‑-S. 561‑A‑Quashment of proceedings‑Question involved before civil and criminal Courts common‑Proceedings before criminal Court stayed and those of Civil Court allowed to continue in circumstances‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 42(7 & 468.‑[Quash ment of proceedings].

Ch. M. A. Wahid for Petitioners.

K. M. Yousuf for Respondent No. 1.

Syed Maqbool Hussain for the State.

This is a petition for quashment of proceedings in a criminal case brought on the basis of a complaint by Raja Fazal ur Rehman Khan respondent No. 2 against the petitioners under sections 420 and 468 P. P. C, Raja Bakhtawar Khan petitioner had purchased some land belonging to the widowed daughter‑in‑law of Raja Fazlur Rehman Khan and the latter had filed a suit for pre‑emption. The members of the brotherhood intervened and a compromise was arrived at between the parties. It was agreed that Bakhtawar Khan will sell the land which he had purchased from the daughter‑in‑law of Raja Fazal ur Rehman respondent to him for a sum of Rs. 50,000. Raja Fazal ur Rehman in turn agreed to sell land measuring 237 kanals 1 marla to Raja Bakhtawar for a sum of Rs. 65,000. The case of the respondent as narrated in the complaint is that Raja Bakhtawar Khan told the complainant that he could not afford to make the payment of Rs. 65,000 before the Registrar and that Raja Fazal ur Rehman should give him Rs. 45,000 so that the entire sum of Rs. 65,000 be placed before the Registrar at the time of the execution of the registered deed. It is further his case that Raja Bakhtawar Khan had agreed that he would admit before the Registrar that he had received the sale price of the land which was to be transferred to Fazal ur Rehman, in two different instalments in the sum of Rs. 14,000. and Rs. 36,000. When the matter came up before the Sub‑Registrar, Raja Bakhtawar Khan paid a sum of Rs. 65,000 to the complainant out of which allegedly Rs. 45,000 belonged to the latter, It is farther alleged that Raja Bakhtawar Khan wriggled out of his commitment to sell the land which he had purchased from the daughter‑in‑law of the complainant respondent, on the ground that the Civil Judge had passed a stay order in respect of that land the case of the complainant appears to be that Raja Bakhtawar Khan duped him to the tune of Rs. 45,000. The respondent complainant also filed a suit on Ist of April, 1974, on the same facts and asked for a decree declaring that the sale deed relating to the land measuring 237 kanals 1 marls ostensibly transferred to Raja Bakhtawar Khan, was illegal and ineffective.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the question involved before the Civil Court is of a similar nature and that Court has to adjudicate upon the facts narrated in the plaint. He submits that the proceedings in the criminal case be stayed till the decision of the Civil Court. On the other hand, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the complainant as well as the State that there is no invariable rule that when a civil suit is pending the criminal proceedings cannot go on.

3. The question involved before both the Courts is as to whether the complainant‑respondent has been cheated out of a sum of Rs. 45,000 in nay view it would be better if the Civil Court is permitted to adjudicate 4 upon the matter and in the meanwhile the proceedings in the criminal case are stayed. I order accordingly. This petition stands disposed of.

Order accordingly.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.