' The petitioner has field a suit for specific performance against respondent No.5 and Mst. Firdos Akhtar before Civil Courts at Pakpattan Sharif on 22-7-2003 seeking enforcement of an agreement to sell dated 11-6-2003 whereunder he allegedly paid an amount of Rs.6,00,000 as earnest money out of total sale price of Rs.7,05,000. The defendants in the suit have already filed their written statement wherein they have denied execution of the agreement date 11-6-2003. Respondent No.5, pending suit, filed an application for registration of criminal case against the petitioner with the allegations of forging the above-referredagreement which was initially dismissed on 22-1-2004 but subsequently on a fresh application, direction for registration of case was issued vide order dated 3-4-2004. Under the directions of the learned Additional District Judge, Pakpattan Sharif, F.I.R. No.39 of 2004 dated 9-4-2004 under sections 471/468/420, P.P.C. Was registered with Police Station Fareed Nagar, District Pakpattan. It is contended that pending civil suit, registration of criminal case on the one hand is unjustified and on the other the order of the learned Sessions Judge under which it was registered was obtained out of concealment of earlier order passed by the learned Sessions Judge himself on 22-1-2004 whereby the registration of criminal case was refused. It has also been submitted that on account of matter being sub-judice before the civil Court, initiation of criminal proceedings are mala fide and are aimed at, to harass and pressurize the petitioner in order to bring him to terms.
2. Heard, Record perused. Assertion of the petitioner revolves around factual disputes, truthfulness or otherwise of which cannot be determined without inquiry and recording of evidence and this course is not permissible in Constitutional jurisdiction of this Cdurt, in view of the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in the case ofMuhammad Younas and 12 others v. Government of N.-W.F.P. throughSecretary Forest and Agriculture, Peshawar and others (1993 SCM R 618). Fate of the alleged agreement to sell dated 11-6-2003 will bedetermined by the civil Court before whom suit of the petitioner forspecific performance is pending and since respondent No.5 has denied its execution, it will be decided whether the said agreement is genuine orforged. As far as fate of the criminal proceedings are concerned, it is settled by this time that where the same matter is sub- judice before the civil Court, criminal proceedings shall remain stayed till the decision of the civil suit and quashment of the F.I.R. Is not advisable. In similar circumstances, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Abdul Haleemv. The State and others (1982 SCM R 988) mandated that proceedings on criminal complaint shall remain stayed during the pendency of civil litigation between the parties on the same subject-matter and the Hon'ble Supreme Court modified the order of the High Court quashing criminal proceedings. This Court, as well, in the case of Haji Ghulam Masoom v.Abdul Hameed and 2 others (1988 PCr.LJ 284) stayed criminal proceedings till final decision of the civil suit, where same matter wasawaiting decision. This Court, again in the case of Muhammad Aslam and others v. Station House Officer, Police Station, Sadar Gojra, Tehsil Gojra District Toba Tek Singh (2003 PCr.LJ 19) held that it will be in the interest of justice if the investigation in the F.I.R. Is stayed till the final disposal of the civil suit, pending between the parties, involving same dispute.
3. Since matter complained by respondent No.5 in F.I.R. No.39 of2004 and the one requiring determination by the civil Court in suit by the petitioner for specific performance, is same, I respectfully, following the view of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Abdul Hameed (supra) direct that criminal proceedings under F.I.R. No.39 of 2004 dated 9-4-2004 with Police Station Fareed Nagar, District Pakpattan Sharif shall remain stayed till the decision of the suit and fate of F.I.R. Will be subject to the ultimate decision therein. This petition is accordingly accepted with the above observations with the no orders as to costs.