1989 P Cr (PLP)

(b) Administration of justice ‑‑‑ Criminal as well as civil proceedings can be competently maintained on same set of facts. Muhammad Muzaffarul Haq for Applicant. This order will govern seven Criminal Revision Applications namely Criminal Revision Applications Nos. 17 of 1986, 18 of 1986, 19 of 1986, 20 of 1986, 21 of 1986, 22 of 1986 and 23 of 1986. In all these revision applications, the applicant is Shaukat Ali son of Rajab Ali and respondents are also the same i.e. respondent No.1 is the State, Respondent No.2 is Muhammad Jaffar son of Suleman Khaku and respondent No.3 is Iqbal Muhammad Jaffar Khaku son of respondent No.

2. Applicant is related to respondents Nos. 2 and

3. Seven separate direct complaints were filed by the applicant against the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 on 11‑5‑1985 alleging that they had committed breach of trust and defrauded the complainant and the company, Hydari Ginning Factory Limited. All the three parties were share holders of this company since 1976 with respondent No.2 as its Managing Director and the applicant and respondent No.3 as Directors. In March 1983, the complainant group purchased the shares of the group of respondents Nos. 2 and

3. Out of the sale consideration payable to respondents Nos. 2 and 3 some amount remained payable, therefore, respondents Nos. 2 and 3, under written agreement, dated 13‑3‑1983, regarding sale of shares entered into agreement between the parties providing for reference of disputes to arbitration, appointed their arbitrator and gave notice to the applicant complainant. Complainant has filed J.M. 15 of 1985 in the High Court for removal of the arbitrator. A Suit No. 732 of 1984 has also been filed by the complainant against respondents Nos. 2 and 3 in the High Court for the recovery of Rs.38,06,488 which is pending. The subject‑matter of this suit covers the subject‑matter and all the amount of the seven complaints filed by the applicant in May 1985. The two civil proceedings i.e. J.M. 15 of 1985 about arbitration and Suit No. 732 of 1984 had been filed much earlier than the 7 complaints. The Magistrate issued process against the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 after entertaining the 7 complaints filed by the applicant. In the complaints no mention was made about the pendency of the two civil proceedings in the High Court and that Suit No. 732 of 1984 covered the entire subject‑matter of the seven complaints. Applications under section 249‑A, Cr.P.C. were filed by respondents Nos. 2 and 3 and the Magistrate, by a well‑reasoned order, supported by several reported decisions of the superior Courts of our country, allowed all the applications and acquitted the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 in all the cases. This order, dated 10‑2‑1986 has been challenged in the present criminal revision applications. I have heard Mr. Muzaffarul Haq, learned counsel for the applicant. The main thrust of the argument of learned counsel for the applicant was that under the law on the same cause of action, civil as well as criminal proceedings can be simultaneously maintained and that on the facts averred in the complaints involvement and implication of respondents is criminal cases was prima facie made out and without recording evidence, the respondents Nos.2 and 3 could not be acquitted. There can be no cavil with the proposition that on the same set of facts criminal as well as civil proceedings can be competently maintained if criminal as well as civil liabilities arise but otherwise contention of learned counsel has no merit. It is apparently a case of civil liability for which proper proceedings are pending in the High Court through Suit No. 732 of 1984. The transaction of sale of shares took place through a written agreement made in March 1983 providing for arbitration. Complainant was a Director of the company even prior to the date of the transaction. The accounts of the company were audited by professional auditors. The alleged withdrawals had taken place much prior to March, 1983. Since March, 1983, the complainant was in total control of the company and its accounts. Civil litigation started between the parties sometime in 1984 or even earlier. There are claims and counter‑claims. After two years of taking control of the company, the 7 complaints were filed in May, 1985. No reference is made about the civil litigation pending about the same subject‑matter in the complaints. Learned Magistrate is correct in observing that this was intentionally suppressed. This shows mala fides on the part of the applicant. Civil litigation is pending for nearly 2 years. It is a matter of accounts. Complaints are filed apparently for the harassment of respondents Nos. 2 and

3. Mala fides have been established. A well‑reasoned order has been passed by the Magistrate acquitting the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 under section 249‑A, Cr.P.C. Criminal Revision Applications Nos. 17 of 1986, 18 of 1986, 19 of 1986, 20 of 1986, 21 of 1986, 22 of 1986 and 23 of 1986 are dismissed in limine. M.Y.H./S‑249/K Acquittal upheld.