2017 PLP 288 (YLR)

Criminal proceedings started against the petitioner on the basis of complaint lodged by respondent No.7. In the complaint it was alleged that the petitioner has issued a cheque for Rs.23.5 million, which upon presentation was dishonoured and thereafter the petitioner caused threats and sought return of the cheque. The date of cheque is 15.1.2011 and it was presented for encashment on 28.2.2011. The Bank informed that as the account has been closed, the cheque could not be honoured. Such communication is dated 01.3.2011. After about three months of dishonouring of cheque FIR was lodged on 21.5.2011 against the petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner in the present proceedings seeks quashment of the FIR. She contended that the allegations made in the complaint are vague, as no date, time or place of intimidation as alleged has been shown in the FIR. She further argued that way back in the year 2008 the petitioner has filed a suit for recovery of amount with regard to partnership business, of which the petitioner and the respondent No.7 were partners and in the written statement while admitting the partnership business the respondent No.7 made no claim of his own for money. She contended that just to pressurize the petitioner to withdraw the pending suit, false case under section 489-F, P.P.C. has been made by forging signatures on the cheque. She further contended that on thirteen dates of hearing only the petitioner attended the Court, but the matter was adjourned on account of absence of respondent No.7 and his witnesses. She relied upon the case reported in 1992 PCr.LJ 110, wherein the proceedings were quashed on account of the delay in lodging of the FIR. She also relied upon the case reported in 2006 PCr.LJ 1900, where for the reason that no date, time and place of occurrence was shown, the FIR was quashed. She also relied upon the case reported in 1992 PCr.LJ 110 and 2009 CLD

237. On being asked by the Court as to whether the trial Court has framed charge, learned counsel for the petitioner admitted that the charge has been framed by the trial Court, but she contended that the case for quashment can proceed in spite of the fact the trial Court has framed the charge. In support of this contention she relied upon the case reported in 2009 SCMR

141. She also referred to the written statement filed by respondent No.7 and stated that it was the petitioner, who is claiming a huge amount of Rs.23.5 million against respondent No.7 and in the written statement the respondent No.7 has not claimed any amount against the petitioner. It was contended that after ousting the petitioner from the partnership business the respondent No.7 laid its hand on petitioner's cheque book from the office of partnership concern and then issued a cheque with forged signature. She submitted that petitioner was ousted from the partnership business and the respondent No.7 is enjoying its income and in order to pressurize the petitioner to give up his litigation with the respondent No.7 a false case has been made out. Learned counsel for respondent No.7, on the other hand, argued that the prayer made in the petition, cannot be granted as the Court has already framed the charge and the issuance of cheque has not been denied by the petitioner in this petition. He argued that Court was lying vacant for a period of one year and the absence of respondent No.7 and his witnesses was on such account only. He contended that as charge has been framed as far back as September, 2011 and only direction may be given to the Court to proceed with the case and decide the same. Learned Deputy Prosecutor General for the State fully supported the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for respondent No.7. We have noted that in the case originally the petitioner was granted bail to the extent of Rs.200,000/-, which amount after filing of revision application by the respondent No.7, was enhanced from Rs.200,000 to Rs.23.5 million. We have also noticed that admittedly the petitioner is claiming a huge sum in Suit No.878/2008 with regard to the partnership business and in the written statement no amount has been claimed by the respondent No.7 against the petitioner. The issuance of cheque by the petitioner has been denied in the petition. Civil litigation is pending between the parties, in which the petitioner was not only claiming a huge amount against the respondent No.7 with regard to the partnership concern, but also alleged that he has been forcibly ousted from the partnership business in spite of the injunctive order which the petitioner obtained in the suit and a contempt application is pending in this regard. The petitioner has also filed a suit for cancellation of the cheque bearing No.748 of 2012 on the ground that it contains forged signature of the petitioner. The pleadings of the respondent No.7 are absolutely silent on the fact as to against what claim petitioner had issued cheque for Rs.23.5 million, more particularly when the petitioner was claiming a huge sum in the pending suit from the respondent No.7 and respondent No.7 had no monetary claim of his own against the petitioner. In our view, where the criminal liability depends entirely upon adjudication of civil claim and civil litigation is pending, the criminal proceedings can be stayed instead of quashing the criminal proceedings. Therefore, relying upon the case reported in 1982 SCMR 988, in which the Court stayed the criminal proceedings, we, order that the trial Court shall not proceed with the trial of Criminal Case bearing Crime No.391/2011 of Korangi Industrial Area, Karachi for offence punishable under Sections 420, 489-F and 506-B, P.P.C. and adjourn the same sine die until suit filed by the petitioner for cancellation of cheque as well as the earlier suit bearing No.878 of 2008 for settlement of accounts etc. are finally adjudicated upon and rights and obligations of the petitioner are decided. This petition stands disposed of in above terms. SL/M-127/Sindh Order accordingly.