Civil and criminal proceedings

Petitioners assailed notices issued to them by Federal Investigating Agency to join inquiry in the matter of execution of Joint Venture Agreement between a private television channel and Pakistan Television Corporation

Validity

Lahore High Court had already declared that the procurement process and JV Agreement did not suffer from illegality

Such question could not be reopened by Executive authorities in exercise of State's police power under the garb of undertaking criminal proceedings in relation to such question, without judgment of Lahore High Court first getting set aside in appeal

Federal Investigating Agency inquiry and notices in question could not be allowed to result in framing of any criminal charges against petitioners

During pendency of matters before two High Courts, Federal Investigating Agency could not continue its investigation and/or frame criminal charges against petitioners as doing so could have the effect of prejudicing the matter(s) pending before Lahore High Court and Sindh High Court

To the extent that the two High Courts issued declarations with regard to legality of procurement process and JV Agreement itself, any criminal proceedings against petitioners would be tantamount to defeating the judgment and/or process of two High Courts

High Court directed petitioners to join investigation and had allowed Federal Investigating Agency to continue its investigation in inquiry No. RE-150/2022 during pendency of present Constitutional petitions

High Court directed Federal Investigating Agency not to frame criminal charges against petitioners, notwithstanding its findings in such inquiry and/or investigation, and would instead stay its hand till the decisions of the High Courts in the related petitions, unless appropriate applications were filed before such High Courts and permission was granted by them to initiate criminal proceedings during pendency of the matters before two High Courts

Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly.

Where the ultimate criminal liability depends on the fate of civil lis, the criminal proceedings are, by operation of law, required to be stopped.

Petitioner seeks ad-interim injunction restraining initiation of proceedings against him in respect of several cheques which have allegedly been stolen by defendant and handed over to others/interveners

First Information Reports have also been lodged against the plaintiff

Validity

Criminal proceedings and other civil litigation between the parties hereto relating the dishonouring of cheques is sub judice

Complaints about alleged fraud and cheating against plaintiff cannot justify that a restraining order be granted to plaintiff as it would have an adverse influence on any pending or future proceedings

Case of plaintiff is not confined to a cheque or few cheques given in pursuance of some undisputed transaction, which can justify a restraining order, in order to forestall further complications in the matter or multiplicity of the proceedings

Numerous cheques in question are in possession of different persons regarding which plaintiff has taken different stance, which require a proper trial

Interlocutory order cannot be extended even indirectly to those and to such matters which are not before the court

Ad-interim injunction cannot be extended to the dishonoured cheques

Application stands dismissed.

Parameter of establishing a criminal charge against accused person(s) and standards of appraising evidence and deciding a criminal case are different from the parameters of establishing a prima facie case as per pleadings, standard of appraising evidence and deciding a case under civil jurisdiction

Decision in a criminal case in such circumstances would not affect the proceeding before a Civil Court, whereas, proceedings before a Civil Court, in appropriate cases, can be given preferential consideration over proceedings in criminal proceedings because of stringent standards of appraising evidence in civil proceedings.

Where an aggrieved party has two different remedies by way of filing criminal case and/or to file a civil suit before the Court of civil jurisdiction, both such cases can proceed simultaneously, and would not affect the merits of the other case, which has to be decided independently on the basis of evidence produced and the relief claimed therein as per law.

Civil and criminal liabilities are two different components and do not have bearing on the outcome of each other, as such due to commission of criminal act by a person, he cannot be denied civil right provided to him under the law.

Standard of appraisement of evidence in criminal and civil cases is altogether different and findings of criminal court are not binding on civil court.

Even after civil proceedings, there is no bar for initiation of criminal proceedings and vice versa; evidence recorded in one proceeding cannot be read in other proceedings except in some cases where any question in criminal proceedings wholly and entirely depends upon the determination by civil court.

Disciplinary and criminal proceedings can go side by side and there is no bar for their simultaneous prosecution.

If an offence is also an actionable wrong, affected person is not precluded to claim damages even though accused stood acquitted from criminal charge on same facts and such claim would neither be hit by principle of res judicata nor by double jeopardy.

Counsel for accused contended that the instant FIR was replica of earlier FIR, which was quashed by the High Court; that second FIR on same facts was barred under the law; that civil proceedings between the parties were also pending; that both civil and criminal proceedings could not go side by side and requests for stay of criminal proceedings till the decision of civil litigation by declaring that criminal proceedings were dependent upon the outcome of civil litigation

Second FIR was based on entirely different facts and premise

Even the nature of documents was different; therefore, it could not be termed as replica or verbatim of earlier FIR

Second FIR was proceed-able under the law

Question of inheritance was pending before the civil court, if the proof failed, party would lose the inheritance, would be deprived of the property and nothing more

Even after a criminal trial, a civil action on the same cause of action was not barred; neither principle of res judicata was applied nor question of autrefois acquit, autrefois convict (previously acquitted and previously convicted), arises

Order passed by Trial Court on application of accused was well reasoned and based on established principles of law

Criminal revision being devoid of merit was dismissed accordingly.

Pre-trial steps including arrest and detention could not be given effect to unless the tax liability of the taxpayer was determined in accordance with S. 11 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990

Whenever civil and criminal cases involved similar or identical subject-matters, the proceedings before the criminal court were not necessarily required to be stayed

However, where subject-matter of both the proceedings was so closely inter-related that outcome of the civil/tax proceedings might have had a material bearing on the criminal proceedings, safer course in such a situation was to stay the criminal proceedings till the finalization of civil/tax matter

High Court held that the proceedings pending pursuant to the impugned FIR would remain stayed till determination of amount due through adjudication proceedings.

Appellant had impugned order passed in Constitutional petition whereby direction by Justice of Peace for registration of criminal case against respondents, was set aside

Validity

Civil suit and ejectment petition between the parties, relating to the matter, were pending before courts of competent jurisdiction, and such fact was overlooked by the Justice of Peace

Trend of availing pre-mature criminal remedies to achieve shortcuts was deprecated by the High Court

Court had rightly observed restraint in the matter for registration of cases

No illegality existed in the impugned order

Intra-court appeals were dismissed, in circumstances.

Petitioner had alleged that respondent defaulted in payment of certain amount and assaulted him with the help of other respondents

Validity

Ex-officio Justice of Peace had not taken medical certificate into consideration and had directed the petitioner to seek civil remedy, when there was no restriction to seek criminal as well as civil remedy, if the conduct of any of the parties had paved way for such a cause

Civil dispute resulting into a cognizable offence was not to be totally refuted by the Ex-officio Justice of Peace as an impossibility

High Court set aside the impugned order and directed the SHO to record the statement of petitioner.

Petitioner was aggrieved of initiation of criminal proceedings against him on the subject matter of civil litigation pending before Banking Court

Validity

Allowing Anti-Corruption Establishment to proceed with the matter and give certain findings about disputed mortgage would affect outcome of civil suits pending before Banking Court and thereby grave injustice would be done to the parties

When civil suits were pending adjudication regarding authenticity of mortgage deed and specific issue was framed, then such question could be thoroughly thrashed out by Banking Court

Civil litigations regarding loan facility was pending adjudication before Banking Court, therefore, initiating criminal proceedings simultaneously would affect result of civil litigations particularly when validity of mortgage was in dispute

High Court suspended inquiry initiated on the complaint of respondents till final decision of the suits

Petition was allowed in circumstances.

Petitioner without seeking remedy before the Banking Court sought quashing of proceedings directly from High Court under constitutional jurisdiction

Validity

Whenever offence was committed by customer of financial institution within the contemplation of Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, it could only be tried by Banking Court constituted thereunder and no other forum

Pendency of civil proceedings relating to same issue was not a bar to commencement or continuation of criminal proceedings

Both proceedings could proceed concurrently as conviction for criminal offence was altogether a different matter from civil liability

Petitioner had approached the High Court directly under Art. 199 of the Constitution for quashing of proceedings of criminal complaint without first exhausting alternate remedies available to him under the law by approaching Trial Court

Such direct approach for quashing, amounted to depriving the other side from presenting its case and or bringing home the guilt of accused

High Court declined to interfere in the matter as petitioner had alternate remedy available to him

Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.

Institution of civil proceedings placed no restriction or embargo upon lodgment of FIR against accused regarding commission of fraud, cheating and misappropriation by the party claiming to have been defrauded

Pendency of civil suit would not obstruct or hamper process of investigation to collect the necessary and essential evidence from concerned forums

Through civil suit aggrieved person could seek settlement of accounts and recovery of deprived amount while by lodgment of FIR the accused could be punished for committing the offence of cheating, fraud and misappropriation

Civil proceedings and criminal prosecution pertaining to same cause of action or dispute could be continued simultaneously before appropriate forums and criminal proceedings could not be stopped for the final decision of civil proceedings or vice versa.

Pendency of civil proceedings relating to same transaction is not a bar to commencement or continuation of criminal proceedings

Both proceedings can proceed concurrently as conviction for criminal offence is altogether a different matter from civil liability.

Mere pendency of civil suit did not bar registration of criminal case against delinquent, if a cognizable offence was committed.