Through this petition the petitioner has assailed order dated 06.12.2004 passed by Sessions Judge, Khanewal through which order dated 22.07.2004 for summoning of the respondents in a private complaint passed by Judicial Magistrate, Khanewal was ordered to be held in abeyance till the final order of High Court or any other superior Court against the order of Sessions Judge through which accused persons were convicted and sentenced in the same occurrence against which private complaint was filed by the petitioner.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner relying on PLD 1971 S.0 713 and 1970 P.Cr. LJ. 448 submits that the impugned order is against the law and facts of the case. There is no bar to continue the proceedings in a private complaint filed regarding the occurrence already reported to the police and whose trial has been concluded. He submits that the occurrence stated in the private complaint is an independent occurrence. The time of occurrence, set off accused, set off witnesses and motive behind the occurrence, stated in the private complaint is altogether different from the police case.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent has opposed the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner. He submits that in fact the private complaint is defense version of the accused persons of criminal case FIR No, 31 dated 5.3.2000 registered under Section 302/148/149 PPC which has been properly put by them during trial of above-said criminal case which has been disbelieved by the trial Court and accused persons have been disbelieved by the Court of competent jurisdiction. The appeal against that judgment is pending before this Court. It is submitted that continuation of private complaint shall prejudice the appeal pending before this Court. No case law has been referred by the learned counsel for the respondent in support of his contentions.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
5. It is general practice to try the counter cases arising cut of the same occurrence side by side till their conclusion. It cannot be said that it is an absolute Rule to be adhered to strictly in, every case: The case could competently be disposed of by the trial Court without awaiting decision of superior Court in counter case. In Muhammad Sadiq's case PLD 1971 SC 713 the order of High Court staying the proceedings before the Magistrate was set aside by the Supreme Court being not justified.
6. There is no express provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure for adopting such a procedure in disposing of the counter cases. There is a general practice for the sake of convenience of the parties. To meet the ends of justice may be a good reason to differ from that practice. There is of course no bar in law to the cases being tried by two different Courts. For whit has been discussed above, this petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 06.12.2004 passed by Additional Sessions Judge is set-aside. The trial Court is directed to proceed in the matter further in accordance with law. This petition is disposed of.