1969L3018 (PLP)
N/A
| Citation | 1969L3018 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | N/A |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1969L3018 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1969L3018 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1969L3018 (PLP) (N/A). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Ahmad Waheed Khan for Petitioners.
- Raja Muhammad Akram for Respondent No. 1.
Judgment & Decree
Muhammad Akbar v. The State and another P L D 1968 S C 281 ref. Ahmad Waheed Khan for Petitioners. Raja Muhammad Akram for Respondent No.
1. Sh. Riaz Ahmad for the State. The prayer made in this application filed under section 561‑A of the Criminal Procedure Code is for stay of proceedings in a complaint entitled "Bagga Khan v. Abdul Majid ere." pending in the Court of Mr. Akhtar Joseph, Magistrate First Class, Rawalpindi.
2. There was litigation between Mst. Arzam Bano and her ex‑husband Iftikharuz Zaman. The dispute was about the payment of dower. A receipt was produced by Iftikharuz Zaman during the proceedings before the Family Court showing that he had already paid Rs. 2,000 out of the doer owing to the lady. The Famliy Court came to the conclusion that the receipt was not genuine. Out of the three petitioners before me, Abdul Majid is scribe of the receipt, whereas Jamshed Ahmad and Salah Muhammad are the attesting witnesses. A complaint was filed by Sardar Bagga Khan, father of Mst. Arzam Bano fur prosecution of 1ftikharuz Zaman and the petitioners under sections 467/ 171 and 109, P. P. C.
3. An appeal, namely, F. A. O. No. 31 of 1967, is pending in the High Court against the order of the civil Court. It is urged that High Court may come to a conclusion different from that of the Family Court and it is therefore proper and meet that the criminal proceedings before Mr. Akhtar Joseph be stayed. Reference in this connection is made to Muhammad Akbar v. The State and another (P L D 1968 S C 281). It was observed by the Supreme Court in the precedent case that normally criminal proceedings should not be postponed pending the disposal of civil litigation connected with the same subject‑matter. But where it is clear that the criminal liability is dependent upon the result of the civil litigation or is so intimately connected with it that there is a danger of grave injustice being done in the case if there be a conflict of decision between the civil Court and the criminal Court, then in such event it is equally clear that the criminal Court has not only the right to but should also stay its hands until the civil litigation is disposed of.
4. In the present case if the High Court comes to a different conclusion regarding the genuineness of the receipt, the proceed ings before the Magistrate will be futile. I would, therefore, in the interest of justice direct that the proceedings before Mr. Akhtar Joseph in the complaint filed by respondent Bagga Khan be stayed till the decision of the Civil appeal in the High Court. Petition accepted.