2006 PLP 489 (CLC)

MUHAMMAD MUZAMMAL KHAN, J.

This judgment proposes to decide four civil revisions, one in hand and the other Civil Revision 1747, Civil Revision 1748 and Civil Revision 1749 of 2005, as all these petitions arise out of similar circumstances, raise alike question of law/facts and require interpretation of same provisions of law, All these petitions challenged the judgments/orders dated 25-9-2004 and 21-3-2005 passed by the learned Civil Judge and the learned Additional District Judge, Okara, rejecting petitioner's four plaints under Order VII, rule 11, C.P.C. and dismissing their appeals respectively.

2. Succinctly, relevant facts are that the petitioner filed four distinct suits, each for recovery of Rs.20,000 and damages from the respondent, who according to him, got false/frivolous criminal case registered vide F.I.R. No.288 of 2003 under sections 468, 471, P.P.C. wherein, each of the respondents was complainant/witness against him. It was further pleaded by the petitioner that on account of registration of fake case, he remained under physical/mental stress besides remaining in physical remand with the police for three days and thus, suffered loss to his health/reputation and claimed its compensation by payment of Rs.20,000 as damages.

3. Respondents in all the four petitions being defendants in the suits, contested the same and moved an application under Order VII, rule 11, C.P.C. with the averments that the petitioner has only been discharged and not acquitted by the concerned Magistrate which too was done on account of pendency of petitioner's suit for specific performance, thus, criminal proceedings did not terminate conferring the right to maintain a suit for damages. The learned Civil Judge who was seized of the matter after hearing the parties took the view that discharge of the petitioner did not amount to his acquittal or termination of criminal proceedings thus, he accepted the applications under Order VII, rule 11, C.P.C. and rejected the plaint vide order, dated 25-9-2004.

4. The petitioner feeling himself aggrieved of the decision by the trial Court dated 25-9-2004 filed four appeals before the learned Additional District Judge, but remained unsuccessful as all these appeals were dismissed vide appellate judgments/decrees dated 21-3-2005. They have now filed four civil revisions for adjudgment of the concurrent judgments/orders of the two Courts below. The respondents in response to notice by this Court were represented through their counsel.

5. I, have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the record, appended herewith. Undisputedly, the petitioner was discharged from the case on the ground that same matter was sub judice before the Civil Court on a suit for specific performance filed by the petitioner and the learned Judicial Magistrate while discharging him observed as follows:-- "The complainant has lodged this F.I.R. on the ground that the accused have prepared a fake agreement to sell on 30-9-2002. File further goes to show that Muhammad Ramzan one of the accused has filed suit for specific performance of the contract against complainant which is pending in the Court of Iftikhar Hussain Chaudhry, learned Civil Judge, Okara. In civil litigation the contention of the accused is that the complainant executed agreement to sell of his house on 30-9-2002 but now he is not ready to execute the sale-deed. On the other hand, the contention of complainant in his written statement is that the alleged agreement to sell is fake and fictitious. I have heard the arguments of both the parties at length. In my humble view it is in the best interest of justice that firstly Civil Court should decide the matter to the effect that whether disputed agreement to sell is forged, false and fake or it is correct. After determination of matter from Civil Court, criminal proceedings may be initiated against the accused if it is determined by the Court that the agreement to sell dated 23-9-2002 is a fake and .forged document. The matter is sub judice in Civil Court on the same ground. I feel in this situation that criminal proceedings cannot be initiated against the accused unless and until determination of matter from Civil Court is decided. Hence the F.I.R. of the case is hereby cancelled. The accused are discharged. However, complainant is open to proceed against the accused if Civil Court decides that document under question is forged or lake. (underlining is mine, to highlight important part of the order).

6. It is obvious from the above reproduced order of the learned Magistrate that discharge of the petitioner is only till the pendency of proceedings in his own suit, on the basis of the agreement to sell which has also been claimed to be forged/fake criminal proceedings against the petitioner neither ended by his acquittal nor those were terminated by any other means, thus, his discharge from the criminal cases, in the given circumstances, did not equip him with a right to file suit for damages against the complainant and the witnesses.

7. The learned counsel for the respondent correctly relied on the judgment in. the case of Ashiq Hussain v. Sessions Judge, Lodhran and 3 others PLJ 2001 Criminal Case (Lahore) 557 td contend that discharge of accused by the learned Magistrate, be it of any kind, cannot be equated with acquittal of the accused, as there is a marked difference between a discharge and an acquittal, thus, the complainant cannot be proceeded against for malicious prosecution simply because accused had been discharged by the learned Magistrate, till decision of his suit.

8. Above all, criminal proceedings against the petitioner have only been suspended till the decision by the Civil Court which can be reactivated under the final verdict of the Civil Court hence, I am of the considered view that all the four suits filed by the petitioner did not disclose any cause of action, thus, the same were correctly rejected under Order VII, rule 11, C.P.C. and this order was rightly affirmed by the Appellate Court.

9. For the reasons noted above, none of the Courts below committed any illegality/irregularity amenable to revisional jurisdiction of this Court, hence, all the four petitions being devoid of any merits, are dismissed with no order as to costs. M.H./M-28/L Revision dismissed.