Find a Lawyer

Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 599 of 1984, decided on 15^th October, 1985.

‑‑‑S. 561‑A‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 464, 465, 120(4), 467 & 471‑‑Prevention of Corruption Act (1I of 1947). S‑ 5(2)‑‑Stay of criminal proceedings pending decision of civil suit‑‑Criminal proceedings filed against accused five years before filing of civil suit which was filed with intention to escape from punishment‑‑Application for stay of criminal proceedings dismissed.

Fazal Din v. Saeedullah Jan 1982 P Cr. L J 322; 1983 P Cr. L J 1945; 1983 P Cr. L J 2479; 1979 S C M R 437; P L D 1976 Lah. 214; Rehmatullah v. Abdul Aziz and another 1974 P Cr. L J 541 and Syed Muhammad Ahmad v. The State 1972 S C M R 85 ref.

Abdul Fateh Malik for Applicant.

Shaikh Ayaz for Respondent No.1.

Zawar Hussain Jaferi, A.A.‑G. for the State.

Date of hearing: 15th October, 1985.

This an a, placation filed by Shaikh Muhammad under section 561‑A, Cr.P.C. for stay of criminal proceedings under sections 464/466, 120(4), 467 and 471 read with section 5(2) Act‑II 1947 pending 4gainst him in the Court, of Special Judge, Anti‑Corruption, Sukkur. These proceedings were instituted against the petitioner and two others through respondent No. .1 Gopalomal.

2. Brief facts are that respondent No. 1 Gopalomal filed first class Civil Suit No. 98 of 1979 against petitioner and others for declaration, possession; mesne profits, damages and permanent injunction. In the suit it is stated that sale‑deed registered on 24‑9‑1974 be declared void as being ficticious and forged document. Before the civil suit a complaint under sections 467, 109, 471, 464, 465, 420 and 120‑B was filed by the respondent against the petitioner and the ease has been brought on the file. The charge has been framed on 18th December, 1980( ) by the learned Special Judge Anti‑Corruption, Sukkur.

3. Mr. Abdul Fateh Malik, appearing for the petitioner contended that criminal proceedings be stayed pending decision of civil suit. He submitted that civil suit as well as criminal proceedings relate to the same subject‑matter.

The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on:‑‑

(1) 1982 P Cr. L J 322 (ii) 1983 P Cr. L J 1945

(iii) 1983 P Cr. L J 2479 (iv) 1979 S C M R 437

(v) P L D 1976 Lah. 214

Mr. Shaikh Ayaz appearing for respondent No. 1, submitted that criminal case was filed in the year 1974 whereas suit has been filed in the year 1979. His contention is that both the cases are independent of the other. He has relied on 1974 P Cr. L J 541 and 1972 S C M R 85.

Mr. Syed Zawar Hussain, learned A.A.‑G. submitted that in these circumstances the proceedings be stayed.

I have gone through the case‑law cited by the learned counsel. The facts of case of Fazaldin v. Saeedullah Jan and 3 others reported in 1982 P Cr. L J 322 are different. The point in that case was that complaint was stated to have been filed in order to pressurise the party, the proceedings were quashed. In some cases the High Court stayed the proceedings. In case reported in 1979 S C M R 437, it has been held that criminal proceedings can be quashed pt the stage when evidence transpired the matter to be of civil liability. In this case if it is proved that forgery is committed accused is liable to be punished and allegations are not of civil nature. In the case of Syed Muhammad Ahmed v. The State reported in 1972 S C M R 85 the civil suit filed only to delay the prosecution and High Court refused to stay the proceedings. Their Lordships observed that High Court exercised discretion properly in refusing to stay the criminal proceedings. In case of Rehmatuliah v. Abdul Aziz and another reported in 1974 P Cr. L J 541 it has been held that it is open to aggrieved person to get the accused punished when fraud is committed and also to recover the amount by way of civil suit as both the proceedings being independent, could proceed.

In this case as already stated that criminal case was filed in the, year 1974 and civil suit is after five years and it has been argued that civil suit has been filed with intention to escape from punishment. I do not like to enter into merits of the case but have come to the conclusion that learned Special Judge, Sukkur has not violated principles of law in refusing to stay the criminal proceedings. His order call for no interference. The proceedings cannot be stayed. The application is dismissed.

M.Y.H. 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.