P L D 2011 Lahore 246 (PLP)

SARDAR TARIQ MASOOD, J.

Through this writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 read with Section 561-A, Cr. P.C. petitioner Allah Ditta prays for setting aside the impugned orders dated 15-1-2011 and 4-12-2010 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sheikhupura, respondent No.1 and Area Judicial Magistrate, Police Station B-Division, City Sheikhupura/respondent No.2, respectively. The petitioner filed an application before the Illaqa Magistrate for stay of the proceedings in case F.I.R. No.767 of 2008 dated 20-9-2008 under section 489-F, P.P.C. registered at Police Station City Sheikhupura, the said application was dismissed on 4-12-2010. Thereafter the petitioner filed a criminal revision against the said order and vide order dated 15-1-2011 learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sheikhupura dismissed the said revision petition.

2. The learned counsel contends that as the matter is pending before the Civil Court, hence, the proceedings before the criminal Court are liable to be stayed till the decision of the Civil Court. It is further argued that the petitioner had filed a civil suit on 22-4-2009 against respondent No.3 who is the complainant of the above mentioned F.I.R.; that both the orders of the lower Courts are against law. It is further argued that in the interest of justice civil suit must be decided first and in the meanwhile, the proceedings in the criminal case may be stayed. Relies on Akhlaq Hussain Kayani v. Zafar Iqbal Kayani and others' (2010 SCMR 1833).

3. Heard. Aman Ullah respondent No.3 lodged aforementioned F.I.R. against the petitioner when cheque issued by the petitioner was dishonoured on presentation to the bank. Petitioner subsequently on 22-4-2009 filed a civil suit claiming that he had paid back Rs.2,00,000 to respondent. He mentioned in the said suit that cause of action arose in August, 2008 but surprisingly said suit was filed on 22-4-2009. It is also mentioned in the said suit that even earlier regarding the same issue, suit filed by the petitioner was dismissed on 15-1-2009. From the above mentioned circumstances it is quite clear that civil suit was filed by the petitioner much after the registration of the F.I.R. and it was not pending prior to the registration of the case. The judgment relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner in Akhlaq Hussain Kayani's case (supra) is having different facts and circumstances.

4. It is almost settled now, that civil and criminal proceedings can be initiated side by side and criminal case must be allowed to proceed on its own merits. Merely, because the civil proceedings relating to the same transaction have been instituted has never been considered to be a legal bar to continuance of criminal proceedings which can proceed concurrently because conviction for -a criminal offence is altogether a different matter from civil liability. While the spirit and purpose of criminal proceedings is to punish the offender for commission of a crime whereas the purpose behind the civil proceedings is to enforce rights arising out of contracts. In law both proceedings can co-exit and proceed simultaneously without any legal restriction. Reference can easily be made to cases of Seema Fareed and others v. The State and another (2008 SCMR 839) and Rafique Bibi v. Muhammad Sharif and others (2006 SCMR 512). From the guidance of these judgments, it is crystal clear that both proceedings of civil and criminal can be initiated side by side and Courts cannot stifle one proceeding for the other.

5. The contention of learned counsel that judgment of the Civil Court will be admissible in criminal proceedings to establish the truth or falsehood of the said criminal case. I am afraid of the fact that this proposition has been dealt with by the honourable apex Court in the case of Malik Khuda Bakhsh v. The State (1995 SCMR 1621) and it was observed that judgment of a Civil Court is not admissible in a criminal proceedings to establish the truth of the facts upon which it is rendered. So, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant to this effect that proceedings in criminal trial be stayed has no force at all.

6. I have gone through the impugned orders of learned ASJ as well as learned Illaqa Magistrate and found no illegality or perversity to interfere in the said orders. Consequently, this petition is hereby dismissed in limine. N.H.Q./A-52/L Petition dismissed.