SCMR 1999

1999 PLP 1475 (SCMR)

Soofi MUHAMMAD ANWAR — Appellant Versus Mst. BADSHAH BEGUM and 6 others — Respondents

Jurisdiction / Court
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Decided Date
Criminal Appeal No.233 of 1994, decided on 1st February, 1999.
Honorable Judges
Sh. Riaz Ahmed and Munir A. Sheikh, JJ
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 1999 PLP 1475 (SCMR)
Forum / Court Supreme Court of Pakistan
Bench Members Sh. Riaz Ahmed and Munir A. Sheikh, JJ
Parties Soofi MUHAMMAD ANWAR — Appellant Versus Mst. BADSHAH BEGUM and 6 others — Respondents
Primary Law Penal Code (XLV of 1860)
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1999 PLP 1475 (SCMR)?

This judgment primarily cites: Penal Code (XLV of 1860) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1999 PLP 1475 (SCMR)?

The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Sh. Riaz Ahmed and Munir A. Sheikh, JJ.

Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?

Cite this legal precedent as: 1999 PLP 1475 (SCMR) (Soofi MUHAMMAD ANWAR — Appellant Versus Mst. BADSHAH BEGUM and 6 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

Penal Code (XLV of 1860)

Representation

  • Hanif Khatana, Advocate Supreme Court and Tarivir Ahmed, Advocate on-Record for Appellant.
  • Sultan Khan, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents.
  • Date of hearing: 1st February, 1999.
  • Altaf Elahl: Sheikh, Additional Advocate-General for the State.

Headnotes / Summary

(On appeal against the order dated 22-2-1992 of the, Lahore High Court, Lahore in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 166-Q of 1.991).

S. 452/ 506/448/511/148/149

Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 561-A

Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185

Criminal proceedings quashed by High Court

Validity

High Court had prematurely arrived at the finding by the Civil Court while dealing with an application for interim injunction

Civil suit was yet to be decided finally and High Court by stifling the prosecution had, therefore, proceeded in haste to quash the Criminal proceedings by means of the impugned order

Proceedings in Criminal Court 'should have been stayed till the decision of the Civil Court

Such legal position ought not to have been departed from by the High Court

Impugned order was set aside accordingly with the direction that criminal proceedings launched at the instance of the appellant would remain intact, but the same were stayed till decision of the Civil Court. Altaf Elahl: Sheikh, Additional Advocate-General for the State.

Judgment & Decree

SH. RIAZ AHMED, J.

This appeal through leave of this Court is directed against the judgment and order dated 22-2-1992 delivered by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court whereby the criminal proceedings instituted by the appellant against the respondents were quashed.

2. The brief facts of the case are that on the basis of F.I,R. lodged by the appellant on 29-4-1986, a case under sections 452, 506, 448, 511, 148 and 149, P.P.C. was registered and the respondents were sent up to face trial on the said charges. During the pendency of the criminal proceedings, the respondents moved an application under section 249-A, Cr.P.C., which was dismissed. The respondents then invoked the inherent jurisdiction of the Lahore High Court by way of moving an application under section 561-A, Cr.P.C., which was allowed by a learned Single Judge and the criminal proceedings were quashed.

3. The background of the litigation is that the appellant was alottee of the disputed quarter. Allegedly he agreed to sell it to Mst. Badshah Begum respondent No. I and had delivered the possession thereof to the respondent, who claimed to be in continuous possession thereof and was living in the said quarter with her family members. On 27-4-1996 the respondent then instituted a suit for declaration and injunction as a consequential relief against the appellant and one Muhammad Hanif and an interim injunction was granted on 28-4-1986. On 7-5-1986 the appellant also instituted a civil suit against the respondent and on 28-6-1986 the learned Civil Judge seized of both the cases considered the question of grant of interim injunction. On the said day interim injunction granted in favour of the respondent was confirmed on the ground that she was in possession of the quarter since long while the appellant was not in possession. On account of this finding, which was tentative in nature, the learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court was of the view that the criminal proceedings were mala fide and were designed to harass the respondent and therefore the learned Single Judge proceeded to quash the criminal proceedings.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and we are of the view that it was premature on the part of the learned Single Judge to have arrived at the finding arrived at by the Civil Court while dealing with an application for interim in junction. The suit was yet to be decided finally and therefore stifling the prosecution the learned Judge proceeded in haste to pass the order impugned. In such-like cases, the law as laid down by this Court from time to time is that proceedings in the Criminal Court should be stayed till the decision of the Civil Court. Such legal position ought not to have been departed from. Accordingly, we allow this appeal and set aside the order impugned and we direct that the criminal proceedings launched at the instance of the appellant shall remain intact, but are stayed till decision of the Civil Court. The parties are left to bear their own costs. N.H.Q./M-294/S Appeal allowed.