2012 PLP 1355 (MLD)

SYED MUHAMMAD KAZIM RAZA SHAMSI, J.

Order dated 7-4-2011 passed by the learned Special Judge Anti-Corruption, Lahore has been questioned through the instant criminal revision petition filed under section 439, Cr.P.C. Learned Court through the impugned order had stayed further proceedings in case F.I.R. No.118 of 2008 on the ground that civil and revenue Courts have taken cognizance of the matter.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the learned Special Judge has wrongly assumed that any civil proceedings were pending at the time when the order in question was passed as such the order is bad in law. Further submission in this context is that there is no bar for taking proceedings in a criminal matter during the pendency of the civil dispute before the civil Court as such the order of staying proceedings is legally not correct. In this connection learned counsel has referred to an order dated 28-2-2011 passed by the learned Civil Court in the suit titled "Muhammad Zaki ur Rehman v. Muhammad Aslam" and submitted that the civil suit instituted on 19-3-2008 was withdrawn on 28-2-2011 as such on 7-4-2011 when the impugned order was passed by the learned trial Court no civil suit was pending in the civil court. He further admitted that the proceedings are pending with the Deputy District Officer (Revenue), Nishtar Town, Lahore, that too had been stayed due to the pendency of the instant criminal case against the respondents.

3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents Nos.2 to 4 submitted that the result of instant criminal case is dependent on the outcome of the civil as well as revenue litigation as such the learned Special Judge had rightly followed the principle laid by this Court as well as by the apex Court in the cases mentioned in the impugned order, thus the order passed by the Court below is within four corners of law.

4. Parties heard and record perused.

5. The dispute between the parties relates to execution of relinquishment deed registered by the respondents in favour of a co-owner in the joint khata whereupon a mutation was attested by the Halqa Patwari. According to the assertions of the petitioner the document was a fake and fabricated one as the same relate to a specific khasra number thus the respondents had committed an offence triable by the criminal Court whereas the stance of the respondents is that the matter is sub judice before a competent Court, which was subsequently withdrawn without informing the Court about its withdrawal and the matter of cancellation of mutation is pending with the DDO(R), thus the result of instant criminal case is dependent upon the outcome of those proceedings. The petitioners' argument that at the time of passing of the impugned order by the learned Special Judge Anti-Corruption no suit was pending is correct proposition but it was not informed by any of the parties to the learned Court that at that time no civil suit was pending. It is notable that civil suit filed by the petitioners remained pending in the civil Court for three long years where-after the same was withdrawn on the ground that the subject matter of the suit is under consideration with DDO(R), Lahore Cantt. This order passed by the civil Court dated 28-2-2011 shows that some proceedings were pending before the civil Court as well as before DDO(R), the result of which was not conveyed to the learned trial Court but this withdrawal of the civil suit cannot be taken as an error on the part of the learned Special Judge Anti-Corruption as according to his opinion the suit was still pending in the civil Court. Evidently at the time of passing of the impugned order according to the opinion of the Court the civil suit was pending before the competent Court. Even otherwise if it is treated that at the time of passing of the order by the learned Special Judge Anti-Corruption no civil suit was in field admittedly there were proceedings pending before the DDO(R) regarding the dispute between the parties. As earlier held that the decision of the case is dependent upon the outcome of the revenue matter thus the Court has rightly stayed the proceedings in the instant case. This argument is equally applicable to other contention of the learned counsel that the civil and criminal Courts enjoy parallel jurisdiction and the matter can be proceeded further in the criminal Court during the pendency of the civil or revenue proceedings. In this connection the case of Akhlaq Hussain Kaiani v. Zafar Iqbal Kiyani and others (2010 SCMR 1835) provides a guideline. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the cited case is distinguishable on the facts and is not applicable to the instant case. No doubt the facts in the cited case are different than the facts of the instant case but the underlying principle in that case is that when it is clear that the criminal liability is dependent on the outcome of civil litigation then criminal proceedings must be stayed. This principle as laid down by the apex Court is equally applicable to the cases where such like situation arises. It may be mentioned here that civil proceedings includes the revenue one also. Thus it can be held safely that the revenue proceedings pending before the DDO(R), Lahore Cantt. could be treated as civil in nature, which would materially determine the real dispute between the parties, whereafter the petitioner may get revive the proceedings in the instant criminal case, if needed. I have no cavil in adopting the view of the apex court in the respect. The upshot of the above discussion is that the learned Special Judge Anti-Corruption, Lahore has exercised the jurisdiction vested in it in accordance with law as such no interference is required by this court.

6. For the foregoing reasons, this petition having no merits, which is accordingly dismissed. M.W.A./Z-21/L Revision dismissed.