P L D 1956 Peshawar 40 (PLP)

MUHAMMAD SHAFI, J. C.‑By a sale deed dated 24th July 1953, Muhammad Akbar Khan, son of Redi Khan, sold 192 Kanals 4 Marlas of land, situated in Hathian in favour of Sultan Ghani, son of Gul, in lieu of Rs. 60,

000. The land sold bore 47 Khasra .numbers, including 1138 and 1137, about which it was specifically mentioned in the sale deed that possession thereof had been delivered at the spot to the vendee. Later on Sultan Ghani instituted a suit against Muhammad Akbar Khan, Musa Khan, Haji Saifullah Khan, Sardar Khan, Mst. Badshah Khanam, Mst. Bibi Rangra, Sher Ali Khan, and Sarfraz Khan for the possession of 192 Kanals 4 Marlas of land, bearing the same Khasra numbers as mentioned in the sale deed, except Khasra Nos. 1137 and 1138, about which it was stated in the plaint that they had wrongly been mentioned for Khasra Nos. 2137 and 2138. Sultan Ghani demanded that he should be granted a decree for the Khasra numbers mentioned in the plaint, but Khasra No. 1137 and 1138 should be read as Khasra Nos. 2137 and 2138. In the plaint it was mentioned that Khasra Nos. 1137 and 1138 had been written in the sale deed by mistake, and that taking the advantage of this mistake, the defendants had taken forcible possession of Khasra Nos. 2137 and 2138, for which a com plaint had been filed against them, which was still pending. On 22nd May 1954, Sultan Ghani made a complaint against Muhammad Akbar Khan, Sher Ali Khan and Sarfraz Khan, the three brothers, under section 447 P. P. C., alleging that they had committed criminal trespass upon a certain land belonging to him, and that they should, therefore, be punished for the same. This complaint was sent by a Magistrate to the Police for report under section 202 Criminal P. C. Another complaint is placed upon the file, which purports to have been drafted on 23rd April 1954, by Sultan Ghani against Muhammad Akbar Khan, Masal and Khadang, under sections 417 and 420 P. P. C., stating that the defendants had cheated him by writing Khasra Nos. 1137 in the deed, although the actual sale was with regard to Khasra Nos. 2137 and 2138. There is nothing on this record to show whether this com plaint was filed in any Court of law, and if so what action was taken upon it. On 14th April 1954, Sultan Ghani lodged a report in Police Hathian to the effect that Muhammad Akbar Khan had cheated him, and therefore, a case against him should be registered under sections 417 and 420 P. P. C. The Police registered a case and submitted a Challan on 23rd October 1954, against Muhammad Akbar Khan, Masal and Khadang, under sections 420/109 P. P. C. These proceedings were objected to by Muhammad Akbar Khan on two grounds. The first ground was that the Challan was bad in law, because a complaint had already been filed in Court and sent to the Police for report, and all that the Police could do was to submit the report, and it was then for the Court to decide, whether any action should be taken upon it or not. The second objection taken was that as a civil case between the parties was pending with regard to the same matter, the criminal proceedings whether they were started on a com plaint or on a report should be quashed, or at any rate postponed till the decision of that suit. Both these conten tions were rejected by the learned trial Magistrate, with the result that there was a revision petition against this order, which was heard by Mr. Habibullah Khan, Sessions Judge, Peshawar, who by his order dated 6th May 1955, upheld the first objection of Muhammad Akbar Khan, but rejected the second one. Muhammad Akbar Khan has now come up in revision to this Court, and the only point, which has been argued before me is that the criminal proceedings started on the Challan or the complaint should be postponed till the decision of the civil suit. The learned Advocate General concedes that in the interests of justice and equity it should be done, because if both the proceedings are allowed to run side by side, and one proceeding concludes earlier, then there is the possibility of the Civil and Criminal Courts coming to two conflicting decisions, and thus bring the law into ridicule. It has been argued by the learned counsel for Sultan Ghani that there is no law under which the criminal pro ceedings can be postponed on account of the civil proceedings. Some authorities have been cited by both sides at the Bar, and after going through them I have arrived at the conclusion that no rigid rule can be laid down that if there are civil and criminal proceedings with regard to the same matter pending in two different Courts of law, one should be A stayed till the decision of the other, or both should be permitted to continue independently of each other. Every case must be decided on its own merits. In the case before me, in the sale deed there are two Khasra numbers specifically mentioned as having been sold along with 45 other Khasra numbers, in favour of Sultan Ghani. In the plaint it has been definitely alleged that the inclusion of these two Khasra numbers was by mistake. Subsequently complaints were filed, in which it was alleged that it was not a mistake but a deliberate attempt on the part of Muhammad Akbar Khan and two others to cheat Sultan Ghani. The question whether Muhammad Akbar Khan sold Khasra Nos. 1137 and 1138 to Sultan Ghani or Khasra Nos. 2137 and 2138 is more or less a dispute of civil nature. Sultan Ghani in order to succeed has got to definitely establish his case, which can only be effectively done in a Civil Court. I am consequently of the view that in the peculiar circumstances of this case, the criminal proceedings pending against Muhammad Akbar Khan etc., should at this stage be quashed. He will, however, if so advised, be at liberty to start criminal proceedings against Muhammad Akbar Khan and others, after the civil case is decided. I could have ordered that the criminal proceedings be postponed until the decision of the civil suit, but then that would entail expense to the parties, who shall have to attend on all the adjourned hearings until the civil case is decided. In order to save the time of the Court as well as the parties, I think the best order, which could be passed is as has been recorded above. I consequently accept this revision petition, and order that the criminal proceedings started on the Challan or on the complaint with regard to Khasra Nos. 2137 and 2138 be quashed, and should not be restarted until the Civil Court has given its decision in the suit already pending. A. H. Petition accepted.