1997 PLP 1604 (MLD)

Ch. Amir Hussain for Petitioner. Malik Mansif Awan for Respondent No.6. Muhammad Raza Munir respondent No.6 got recorded Crime Case No.33 dated 25‑1‑1996 at Police Station Kotwali, Faisalabad under section 506/ 440/448/511/34, P.P.C. about the occurrence taking place on 12‑1‑1996. According to the complainant in spite of the issuance of the temporary injunction by the Civil Court the accused trespassed the property and deprived him of a portion of the same wherein Almirah was installed in violation of the temporary injunction.

2. Feeling aggrieved Shakir Aziz Akhtar, Bashir Ahmad and Rehman Baig petitioners‑accused filed this writ petition for the quashment of the F.I.R. on the ground that the application for initiating contempt proceedings against the violation of the stay order was pending before the Civil Court and that the front could not be opened with the police through the registration of the F.I.R. The comments have been called and according to the SHO the case was registered for the reason that the stay order was violated and that the attempt to criminally intimidate the complainant was made.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties as well as the learned Assistant Advocate‑General and gone through the record before me. At the very outset Muhammad Raza Munir complainant expressed that he has compromised and that he would not prosecute his criminal matter registered by the police. I, however, feel that this petition should be disposed of on merits in view of the fact that it is an attempt by the police to overlap the working of the Civil Court and obviously for the purpose of the projection of its authority.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners‑accused has canvassed that in view of the pendency of the application for initiation of contempt proceedings against the defendants before the Civil Court the criminal front could not be opened at the police Station as about one occurrence two criminal proceedings cannot be initiated and continued. Learned counsel for the complainant and the learned Assistant Advocate‑General did not express a contrary view to that expressed by the learned counsel for the petitioners. Legally it is the correct approach. Exactly on the same framework regarding the same occurrence the earlier application was filed by the complainant of the criminal case before the Civil Court for the initiation of the contempt proceedings. That application is still pending. After many days thereafter the case was got registered at Police Station Kotwali, District Faisalabad, the quashment of which is being desired and required by the petitioners‑accused. Legally about one occurrence the two criminal proceedings cannot be initiated. In case the application for the commission of contempt of Court is accepted by the Civil Court the punishment shall have to be awarded to the violators of the order of the Civil Court passed on the application for the grant of temporary injunction. Thereafter the taking of the matter to the Police Station can safely be held to be a device coined by the complainant of the criminal case/plaintiff of the civil suit to put the pressure upon the adverse party. It is a matter of common knowledge these days that the parties try to proceed under the umbrella of the police. However, such a working cannot be approved by this Court. It was better for the Police Officer to advise the complainant to seek the assistance of the Civil Court especially when it is a matter of violation of the stay order which also stands narrated in the First Information Report. Even after the conclusion of the trial the matter cannot be reopened on the second front. In this regard section 403, Criminal Procedure Code as well as section 11 of the Civil Procedure Code are referred to. Once a criminal case is decided no fresh proceedings can be conducted. Likewise if a civil suit between the same parties on the basis of the same cause of action is finally determined no fresh suit is maintainable. Consequently I hold that the registration of the F.I.R. is based on malice and mala fides and working of the police in the special circumstances of the case cannot be approved. As such about the same occurrence two criminal proceedings cannot be allowed to be prosecuted and conducted simultaneously.

5. For what has been said above, I accept this application and quash the No. 33 of 1996 registered at Police Station Kotwali, Faisalabad under section 506/440/448/511/34, P.P.C. The Police Officers have been directed to show regards to the Civil Court. They should not try to overlap the working of the Civil Court failing which some time the law shall take its course and they shall have to face the legal consequences to their detriment. N.H.Q./S‑74/L F.I.R. quashed.