2000 PLP 863 (MLD)
MUHAMMAD AKRAM‑‑‑Petitioner Versus MIR AFZAL and 4 oihers‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 2000 PLP 863 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Peshawar |
| Bench Members | Sardar Muhammad Raza Khan and Talat Qayum Qureshi, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD AKRAM‑‑‑Petitioner Versus MIR AFZAL and 4 oihers‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V .of 1898)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2000 PLP 863 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V .of 1898)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2000 PLP 863 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Peshawar bench comprising: Sardar Muhammad Raza Khan and Talat Qayum Qureshi, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2000 PLP 863 (MLD) (MUHAMMAD AKRAM‑‑‑Petitioner Versus MIR AFZAL and 4 oihers‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Alan Khan Jadoon for Petitioner.
- Abur Rauf Khan for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 24th November, 1999.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑Ss.195, 200 & 561‑A‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.193/209/419/420/465/46$/471/474‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199‑‑‑Filing of complaint pending civil spit‑‑‑Quashing of proceedings‑‑ Constitutional petition‑‑‑Pending suit for damages filed by respondent against petitioner in Civil Court, respondent filed application under S.195, Cr.P.C. for filing complaint against petitioner‑‑‑Court below accepting said application directed initiation of criminal proceedings against petitioner‑‑ Validity‑‑‑When real matter in controversy and when principal document disputed between the parties, was sub judice before Trial Court, criminal proceedings could not be initiated‑‑‑Criminal proceedings at such a stage would amount to putting pressure on and exercising coercion against petitioner‑‑‑High Court directed that criminal proceedings be kept pending till final decision of suit for damages filed by respondent and decision of suit for specific performance of contract subsequently filed by the petitioner against respondent.
Judgment & Decree
Abur Rauf Khan for Respondents. Date of hearing: 24th November, 1999. SARDAR MUHAMMAD RAZA KHAN, J.‑‑‑In compliance with the order, dated 2‑7‑1997 passed by the learned Sessions Judge Abbottabad in revision, the learned Civil Judge Abbottabad, on 14‑11‑1997 filed a complaint under section 200, Cr.P.C. against Muhammad Akram, charging him under section 193/209/419/420/465/466/468/471/474, P.P.C. read with section 195, Cr.P.C.
2. The background of the case is that Muhammad Akram petitioner filed a suit for declaration‑cum‑possession of certain property against Mir Afzal respondent on 11‑2‑1996. After the submission of written statement by Mir Afzal, the plaintiff through application, dated 18‑9‑1996 got the suit dismissed as withdrawn.
3. After the dismissal of the above suit Mir Afzal brought a suit for damages on 30‑9‑1996 against Muhammad Akram which is still pending before the trial Court. On 29‑9‑1996 Mir Afzal, the plaintiff of the subsequent suit filed an application before the first Court under section 195, Cr.P.C. that a complaint, as above, be filed against Muhammad Akram, the plaintiff of the first suit. Such application was dismissed but accepted in revision and the criminal proceedings were directed to be initiated.
4. It is a matter of record as well as arguments that the first suit was based on an agreement which, in all circumstances, would be and is a weapon of defence in the subsequent suit for damages. The genuineness or otherwise of such agreement would determine not only the fate of the suit for damages but also the need or otherwise to initiate criminal proceedings. When the real matter in controversy and when the principal document disputed between the parties is a matter strongly sub judice, before the trial Court, how on earth, any criminal proceedings can be initiated so prematurely and at a stage when the substantial matter involved is sub judice, It is likely to give rise to a contradictory phenomena and one can veil imagine the fate of criminal proceedings in case the Court holds the agreement deed to be genuine ultimately. Needless to mention that criminal proceedings at this sub judice stage would amount to putting undue influence and exercising coercion against Muhammad Akram plaintiff of the first suit.
5. The writ petition is accepted and the criminal proceedings are directed to be kept pending till the final decision of the suit for damages filed by the respondent and also till the decision of suit for specific performance of.1 contract reportedly filed now by the petitioner Muhammad Akram. H.B.T./503/P Petition accepted.