1998 PLP 1646 (MLD)

(b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

S. 561-A

Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199

Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 420/468/471/109

Quashing of proceedings

Pendency of Civil suit

Effect

Pending civil proceedings in the civil Court on the subject-matter in question Criminal Court could not initiate parallel proceedings

If proceedings were pending in Civil Court regarding matter jet dispute, quashing of F.I.R. could not be ordered and police had right to continue with the investigation and also submit a report under S. 173, Cr.P.C.

When police would come to the conclusion that an offence had been committed the proceedings before the Criminal Court would remain stayed unless verdict against accused was given by the Civil Court. Ch. Pervaiz Aftab for Petitioner. Muhammad Ramzan Khalid for the Complainant. Date of hearing: 20th November, 1997 Through this petition quashment of F.I.R. No.344 of 1994, under section 420/109/468/471, P.P.C., registered with Police Station Chehlyak, District Multan on the statement of Ahmad Nawaz Taragar, has been sought.

2. It was, inter alia, alleged that the petitioner got a fabricated power of attorney dated 13-7-1980 and agreement prepared in his name, after the death of the complainant's father. It is, however, admitted in the F.I.R. itself that a suit for declaration has been filed by the petitioner on 24-1-1993 in the Court of learned Senior Civil Judge and according to the complainant a consent decree was obtained fraudulently which has been challenged under section 12(2), C.P.C. which is pending adjudication and is fixed for recording evidence.

3. It is argued that dispute in between the parties is of civil nature and is pending in the civil Court. It is true that if a criminal action is dependent on the declaration of a civil right, proceedings therein have to be withheld until the determination of the same by the civil Court. The line of division between a civil right and a criminal liability is very thin. In case it is found that fraud and forgery has been committed, the offences mentioned in the F.I.R. i.e. section 420/109/468/471. P.P.C may be constituted and the police has jurisdiction to conduct the investigation. On the basis of the contents of the F.I.R. it cannot be said that the commission of any offence is not disclosed. Learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, does not press his prayer for quashment of the F.T.R. He, however, submits that in view of pendency of civil proceedings in the civil Court on the subject-matter, a criminal Court cannot initiate parallel proceedings. The contention is not without substance. Learned counsel for the respondent admits that proceedings are pending in the Civil Court. In view of the admitted position quashment of F.I.R. cannot be ordered. The police has every right to continue with the investigation and also submit a report under section 173, Cr.P.C., if they come to the conclusion that an offence has been committed, the proceedings before the criminal Court will remain stayed unless verdict against the petitioners is given by the Civil Court.

4. Since the arrest of the petitioners has been restrained by this Court, therefore, they did not move an application for grant of bail. The petitioners in the interest of justice are allowed 10 days time w.e.f. today to move an application for bail before the Court of competent jurisdiction. The petition is disposed of with the observations made above. H.B.T./H-49/L Order accordingly.