P L D 2006 Supreme Court 771 (PLP)
ABDUL AHAD — Petitioner Versus AMJAD ALI and others — Respondents
| Citation | P L D 2006 Supreme Court 771 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Ch. Ijaz Ahmad and Syed Jamshed Ali, JJ |
| Parties | ABDUL AHAD — Petitioner Versus AMJAD ALI and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Penal Code (XLV of 1860) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 2006 Supreme Court 771 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Penal Code (XLV of 1860) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 2006 Supreme Court 771 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Ch. Ijaz Ahmad and Syed Jamshed Ali, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 2006 Supreme Court 771 (PLP) (ABDUL AHAD — Petitioner Versus AMJAD ALI and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Afridi Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and Mir Adam Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss.419/420/468/471/109/34
Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S.42
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)
Criminal and civil proceedings on the same subject
Civil and criminal proceedings were pending between the parties regarding title of suit house
Trial Court, on the application of respondent stayed criminal proceedings which order was upheld by High Court
No invariable rule existed to the effect that criminal proceedings should be stayed pending decision of civil suit but the matter was entirely one of discretion
While exercising discretion, the guiding principles should be to see as to whether accused was likely to be prejudiced, if criminal proceedings were not stayed in case of dispute regarding title, where it was difficult to draw a line between a bona fide claim and criminal action
Courts below, in the present case had exercised discretion in favour of respondent keeping in view the guiding principles laid down by 'superior Courts
Supreme Court did not find any illegality in the judgment passed by High Court
Leave to appeal was refused.
Judgment & Decree
CH. IJAZ AHMAD, J.
The petitioner has sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the learned Peshawar High Court dated 16-1-2006 through this petition.
2. The brief facts out of which the present petition arises are that petitioner filed a complaint before Illaqa Qazi under sections 419/420/468/471/109/34, P.P.C. The respondent filed application for stay of the proceedings on the ground that civil suit had already been filed before the competent Court which was pending adjudication. The Qazi concerned stayed the proceedings vide order dated 18-10-2004 which was upheld up to the level of the learned Peshawar High Court vide impugned judgment dated 16-1-2006.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that learned Courts below erred in law to stay the proceedings without adopting the proper procedure as prescribed by the Code of Criminal Procedure.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. The learned Peshawar High Court had considered the contentions of learned counsel of the petitioner and rejected the same as is evident from para. 3 of the impugned judgment which is reproduced hereunder:-- "Admittedly, the suit house is not the exclusive ownership of the petitioner. He is owner of the house in question along with his brother Ghulam Rabbani. Instalment of electricity meter is not a title deed. Abdul Samad, father of the petitioner and Ghulam Rabbani, is alive and he has tendered an affidavit in Court that he has given this house to Abdul Ahad, the present petitioner, and his brother Ghulam Rabbani and that there was a tussle over the electricity expenses. So in order to avoid the same, Ghulam Rabbani, the other brother/owner through respondent Amjad Ali installed another meter in the said house. Moreover, a civil suit regarding ownership is pending in a competent forum. So keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the orders of the two Courts below need no interference and the quashment petition in hand having no legal force is hereby dismissed in limine. "
5. There is now consensus of opinion that there is no invariable rule that a criminal proceeding should be stayed pending the decision of civil suit but the matter is one of discretion entirely. While exercising discretion the guiding principle should be to see as to whether the accused is likely to be prejudiced if the criminal proceedings are not stayed in case of dispute regarding title where it is difficult to draw a line between a bona fide claim and the criminal action. All the Courts below had exercised discretion in favour of the respondent keeping in view the guiding principles laid down by the superior Courts. See Muhammad Akbar v. The State PLD 1968 SC 281; Sheikh Ahmad v. Sheikh Muhammad Younis 1971 PCr. LJ 331 and Mansharam Madhavadas v. Chetanram Rupchand and others AIR 1945 Sindh 32.
6. We do not find any infirmity or illegality in the impugned judgment. Therefore, the petition being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed. Leave refused. M.H./A-71/S Petition dismissed.