Find a Lawyer

Criminal Miscellaneous No. 57/Q of 1982, decided on 10th April, 1982.

----S. 561-A-Stay of criminal proceedings pending disposal of a civil suit-Complainant and petitioners owners of joint land ---Report lodged against petitioners for selling complainant's land alongwith their land-Complainant also filing civil suit for can cellation of fraudulent sale-Held, filing of such suit does not ipso facto entitle petitioners to have criminal proceedings stayed--- Such proceedings can only be stayed pending decision of civil litiga tion where bona fide dispute to title to property exists.

P L D 1968 S C 281 ref.

Petitioner in person.

Syed Muhammad Hussain Shah for the Complainant.

Abdul Naeem Qureshi for the State.

This is a petition under section 561-A, Cr. P. C. by Shah Muhammad and three others, petitioners Nos. 1 to 4, for stay of criminal proceedings pending against them under section 420/468/471/109, P. P. C. in the Court of Mr. Sarfraz Khan, Magistrate. Section 30, Lahore, as civil litigation connected with the same subject-matter is pending.

2. The brief facts of the case are that Hakim Ali, complainant, with Imam Din and Hasan Din, owned half share of joint Khata with Shah Muhammad, Ghulam Muhammad and Muhammad Ali, who owned the other half, in respect of the under-noted agricultural land situated at Multan Road, Lahore.

Khasra No. 343 4 Kanals 15 marlas

Khasra No. 344 min 1 Kanal 5 marlas

Khasra No. 344 min 1 Kanal 3 marlas

--------------------

Total 7 Kanals 3 marlas

---------------------

Shah Muhammad and Ghulam Muhammad through a Registered sale-deed dated 8th April, 1976 sold the above 7 Kanals 3 Marlas together with land under Khasra No. 3924/345 to a third party. On coming to know that Shah Muhammad and Ghulam Muhammad, petitioners had not only sold their share of the joint Khata but also that of Hakim Ali complainant and Imam Din, Hassan Din and Muhammad Ali, the com plainant lodged a report with the police which resulted in challan being submitted against Shah Muhammad and Ghulam Muhammad, vendors, Ghulam Hyder, the property dealer, and Muhammad Ramzan, the witness.

3. The case of the petitioner is that since Hakim Ali complainant and others had already instituted a suit in 1978 for a declaration that the sale deed executed by Shah Muhammad etc., petitioners, is illegal, null and void, that the present criminal proceedings lodged later by the com plainant should be stayed, pending the final disposal of the civil suit.

4. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners, the complainant and the State. The fact that the civil suit' has been filed by the complainant for the cancellation of a fraudulent sale deed executed by Ghulam Muhammad and Shah Muhammad, the present petitioner, in respect of that portion of land not owned by the petitioners, does not ipso facto entitle the petitioners to have the criminal proceeding stayed pending the decision of Civil litigation filed by the complainant. The criminal proceedings can only be stayed pending decision of the civil litigation, where a bona f de dispute to the title to the property exists. See P L D 1968 S C 281. The complainant has filed a certified copy of the Register Haqdaran for the year 1971-72 which clearly shows that Shah Muhammad and Ghulam Muhammad petitioners, which one Muhammad Ali is only entitled to half share of the 4 Kanals 3 Marlas of land covered under Khasras Nos. 343, 344 min and 344 min in Mohal Shabpur, Tehsil arid District Lahore. The petitioners have also filed certified copies of Register Haqdaran for 1971-72 and 1937-38 and certified copy of Jamabandi purporting to be attested by the Patwari dated 8th March, 1981. The first shows the petitioners entitlement to 3 Kanals 5 Marlas .of land under Khasra No. 3924/342, which is not in dispute. Hakim Ali complainant and Imam Din and Hasan Din are not owners of the said khasra and they have no, grievance against the petitioners for the sale thereof. The second document is an ancient document relating to the year 1937-38 showing ownership of different persons to various Khasras (including Kbasra Nos. 343 and 344). This does not prove the present case of the petitioners at all in any way. The third document i.e. Jamabandi clearly shows that Shah Muhammad and Ghulam Muhammad are owners of 1/3 share in 7 Kanals and 3 Marlas of land covered by Khasra Nos. 343 and 344 and share in 2 Kanals and 5 marlas of land covered by Khasra No. 3924/342. This document in fact destroys the case of the petitioners. All the. documents collectively show that Shah Muhammad and Ghulam Muhammad petitioners, fraudulently not only sold their share of the land in the joint Khata covered by Khasras Nos. 343 and 344, but that of Hakim Ali complainant and others also. In these circumstances, it can not be said that there is any bona fide dispute pending as regards the title to the said Khasras between the complainant party, on the one hand, and the accused party, on the other, which would justify the stay of criminal proceedings pending against the accused party.

5. For the foregoing reasons, there is no merit in this petition, which is dismissed.

Petition dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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