1976 P Cr (PLP)

M. Nazir Sheikh for Respondent No.

1. Muhammad Latif for the State. This petition for quashment of proceedings (pending against the petitioners under section 420/34, P. P. C. has arisen out of the following circumstances:-- The petitioner vide agreement copy (Annex `B') undertook to supply timber to respondent No. 1 Haji Shiekh Muhammad Ismail Sethi and it was agreed that a sum of Rs. 10,000 will be paid by him as advance to the petitioners. It is also stated by the learned counsel on both sides that another sun of Rs. 10,000 was paid one month after the execution of the agreement. The dispute between the parties relates to the interpretation of para. 2 of the agreement. is mentioned in this para. that the petitioners had purchased timber from Poonch Kashmir sorest Company, Muzaffarabad, of Garhi Dopatta, and that the timber was to be supplied according to the release made by the aforesaid Forest Company and that the price of the timber was to be paid at the spot after paltal. Whereas the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the price was to be paid at Garhi Dopatta at the time of the loading of the timber, the learned counsel for the respondent submits that the price was to be paid at Jhelum after the timber had been unloaded there. The responsibility for transporting the timber to Jhelum was, of course, of the petitioners.

2. The bargain between the parties having fallen through, the petitioners filed a civil suit in the Court of Civil Judge, First class, Jhelum, on 3rd of October 1974, for recovery of Rs. 2,0000 as damages as it was their claim that they had suffered a loss of nearly Rs. 60,000, but in the suit they confined their claim to Rs. 40,

000. The amount realisable came to Rs. 21,000 after the deduction of the advance made by the respondent.

3. The respondent also filed a suit on 16th of October 1974, for mandatory and permanent injunction against the petitioners asking the Court to issue an injunction against then so that they refrain from selling the timber for which the bargain had been made. This suit, I understand, was dismissed as not maintainable.

4. The complaint on which the present criminal proceedings started, was filed on 28th of October 1974, i.e. about twenty‑five days after the institution of the suit by the petitioners.

5. The question involved in this case is of the interpretation of the agreement and the way it was to be enforced. The matter is pending before the Civil Court which will finally decide it. It is, therefore, proper that the criminal proceedings till the decision of the Civil Court be stayed. I order accordingly. The petition stands disposed of. Order accordingly.