Find a Lawyer

Criminal Miscellaneous No. 535/Q of 1975, heard on 4th May 1976.

‑ S. 561‑A ‑ Quashment of proceedings ‑ Disputed tractor purchased with loan obtained by petitioner and respondent and both acting with mutual confidence‑Differences having arisen respondent trying to get tractor through panchayat and petitioner through civil Court‑Simultaneous criminal proceedings against petitioner, held, not in interest of justice‑Criminal proceedings stayed till decision of civil litigation in circumstances.

Ghulam Muhammad v. Muzammal Khan and 4 others P L D 1967 S C 317 rel.

Syed Afzal Haider for Appellant.

Yasin Wattoo for Respondent No. 1.

Naeem Malik for the State.

Date of hearing : 4th May 1976.

Facts leading to this petition are that the petitioner and the respondent No. 1 and later's brothers jointly applied for loan to the Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan, Pakpattan Branch for purchase of a tractor and tube‑well machine sometime in the year 1969. The loan was sanctioned and as security the petitioner mortgaged 75 acres of his agricultural land and the respondent No. 1 and his brothers approximately 45 acres of land. With the loan, a tube‑well was installed and so also a tractor purchased. This happened sometime in 1969. According to the petitioner, on account of the prices of tractor going up, the respondent No. 1 and his brothers denied the tractor to the petitioner. The later filed a suit for a declaration of his rights in the tractor before the learned Civil Judge Pakpattan on 10‑10‑74 and also applied for a temporary injunction restraining the defendants, including the respondent No. 1, from interfering in the possession of the tractor by the petitioner. An order of status quo was granted the same day viz 10‑10‑1974 by the learned trial Court with a notice to the defendants for l6‑10‑1974, The respondent No. 1 on 13‑10‑1974 lodged a F. I. R, No. 491 at the Police Station, Pakpattan against the petitioner and others which was registered under sections 382/ 148, 149, P. P. C. on the allegation of forcible taking away of the tractor by the petitioners and others on 4‑10‑1974 and that during the integrum, the respondent No.1 had been trying to recover the tractor by means of Panchayat. The learned Civil Court, on the adjourn ed hearing dated 7‑11‑1974, rejected the application of the petitioner for a temporary injunction. The petitioner's appeal before the learned District Judge tailed on 14‑11‑1974. After investigation, the case registered at the instance of the respondent No. 1 was sent up for trial before the learned Magistrate, 1st Class, Pakpattan. The petitioner has applied for quashment of the criminal case.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the tractor in question was purchased with the loan jointly obtained by the petitioner and the respondent No.1 and the later's brother. Therefore, there was no question of the petitioner committing a theft in respect thereof. Consequently, the criminal proceedings launched against the petitioner and others under sections 382, 148 and 149, P. P. C. have no substance whatsoever and it is an abuse of the processes of criminal Courts to allow the same to continue. It is, next, contended that the petitioner had filed a civil suit to respect of the tractor on 10‑10‑1974 and it was only in retaliation to pres surise the petitioner that the F. I. R. was lodged on 13‑10‑1974. Consequ ently, the learned counsel submits that this has been done in order to subvert the civil proceedings and initiation of criminal proceedings is an abuse of the processes of the criminal Court. Therefore, the proceedings are liable to be quashed. Learned counsel has also referred to a case decided by my learned brother Mr. Justice Atta Ullah Sajjad, vide Criminal Miscella neous No. 628/Q/74 in which criminal proceedings were stayed when the same subject‑matter was also pending before the Civil Court vide judgment of his Lordship dated 18‑3‑1975. Learned counsel has submitted that he sought appeal against this judgment vide Criminal Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 163/75 but the same was declined by their Lordships of the Supreme Court on 12‑3‑1976.

3. Learned counsel for respondent No. 1 has submitted that there is no jurisdiction or occasion to quash the proceedings in the present case. He has referred to a number of decision and placed reliance on Ghulam Mohammad v. Muzammal Khan and 4 others (PLD1967SC317). Learned counsel has, further submitted that according to the F. I. R. the tractor by private agreement, belongs to the respondent No. 1 and was in his possession. Therefore, the question of joint ownership did not arise. It is, next, contended that even if the tractor was in the joint ownership, the petitioner and his co‑accused had no right to use force to dispossess the respondent No. 1 and to forcibly take away the tractor.

4. Learned counsel for the State has supported the learned counsel for the complainant, the respondent No. 1.

5. The learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 is quite right that there is no justification to quash the proceedings. But there is another aspect of the case and that is that per the F. I. R. and the contentions of the learned counsel for the parties, it would appear that according to the respondent No. 1 the tractor was taken away forcibly from the respondent and others on 4‑10‑1974. He tried to take back the tractor frown the petitioner and others through the intervention and assistance of the Panchayat and when he failed, he lodged the report on 13‑10‑1974. The petitioner, on his part, had tried to have or retain the possession of the tractor through the processes of Civil Courts when he filed a civil suit on 10‑10‑1974 and obtained an order of status quo. The later order was subsequently withdrawn by the learned trial Court and the petitioner's effort failed in appeal. The net result is, as admitted by the learned counsel for the parties, that the tractor is now with the respondent No. 1. Thus, it would appear that truly and essentially the dispute is about the possession of the tractor. Both parties sought to have or retain the tractor, the respondent No. 1 through Panchayat and the petitioner through Civil Court. It was only when the petitioner had filed a civil suit and obtained an order of status quo on 10‑10‑1974 that the respondent No.1 filed the F. I. R. on 13‑10‑1974 alleging that he had been forcibly dispossessed of the tractor on 4‑10‑1974. It appears that the recourse to the criminal machinery of Law was had by the respondent No. 1 after the petitioner had taken the matter to the Civil Court. Admittedly. the tractor was purchased with the loan obtained by the petitioner,, respondent No. 1 and the later's brothers. So to start with, they were acting together and with mutual confidence in each other. It also appears that when differ ences arose between them, the respondent No. 1 tried to get the tractor through the Panchayat and the petitioner through a Civil Court. Both had sought their rights in civil manner through civil processes. The tractor is now with the respondent No. 1. Simultaneous continuation of criminal proceedings does not appear to be condusive or, in the interest of justice. In this view of the matter, the criminal proceedings are stayed till the decision of the civil litigation. The learned Civil Court may be moved by either party for an expeditious disposal of the suit which request when made shall be given, it is hoped due consideration by the learned Civil Court.

6. With the above observations, This petition is 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.