' KHAWAJA MUHAMMAD SHARIF, C.J.---Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a case was registered against the petitioner vide F.I.R. No,1359 dated 17-12-2005 under section 489-F, P.P.C. In Police Station Defence Lahore on the statement of Mahmood A. Sh. Respondent No .
2.
'That petitioner was already in police custody in case F.I.R. No,262 of 2005 when under coercion and pressure an agreement was got signed from the petitioner by respondent No,2 in collusion with the local police and cheque of Rs,74,00,000 vide No,10530026 was obtained; that in the instant F.I.R.
Petitioner was taken into custody on 8-4-2005 and the cheque was signed on 15-4-2005; that after release on bail petitioner filed a civil suit on 30-4-2005 in the Civil Court for rendition of account and permanent injunction which is still pending; that respondent No,2 had also filed four suits under Order XXXVII, rule 1, C.P.C. Which were dismissed by learned lower Court; that the petitioner also filed bail before arrest application which was dismissed and he has referred 'to an order passed by me in Crl. Misc. No,2992-B of 2006 dated 16-5-2006 and also referred to page 7 of my order which reads as follow:-- "Moreover on one hand, petitioner on the basis of compromise got himself on bail but on the other hand, he claimed that the same was done under pressure and coercion and that is a matter of inquiry, which can only be held by a Civil Court, where the Civil Suits are pending in this regard.
During compromise, he issued the cheques, which were dishonoured; this shows his dishonesty towards repayment of a loan fulfilment of an obligation. Moreover, this is a Bail before arrest and considerations for the grant of bail before arrest and after arrest are totally different. No case for bail before arrest is made out, therefore, all these bail petitions are hereby dismissed."
' Learned counsel further submits that in fact respondent No,2 got stay order in the civil suit filed by him so the evidence could not be recorded; that in civil suit his main prayer was the same which was in Crl. Misc. No,1292-M-2009 filed in the instant Crl. Misc. No,1129-M-2009; that till the final disposal of suit filed by him, the learned trial Court should not be allowed to announce the judgment in which the evidence and arguments have been completed. Learned counsel for the petitioner .Has also referred to an order passed by my learned brother Asif Saeed Khan Khosa, J. In Crl. Misc. No,8868-CB2005 dated 2-12-2005 which is as under:-- "That it is not disputed that the dispute between the parties is presently sub judice before a Civil Court and, thus, interference by this Court in the matter appears to be even otherwise uncalled for at such a stage."
' Learned counsel submits that if this Court allows the petitioner only one week time, he will produce his evidence before the Civil Court in the civil suit mentioned above.
2. On the other hand learned counsel for respondent No,2 submits that as far as an agreement dated 15-4-2005 referred to by learned counsel fOr the petitioner is concerned, as per agreement the papers in this regard were purchased by Saddaqat Ali, real brother of the petitioner from the stamp vendor having his shop in front of Gantt: Court, Lahore; that the above said agreement was produced before Illaqa Magistrate on 16-4-2005 and on the basis of that agreement petitioner was allowed bail and no objection was raised either by the petitioner or his brother; that thereafter petitioner applied for bail before arrest in case F.I.R. No,266 of 2005 registered in Police Station Gulberg Lahore; that during interim bail before arrest petitioner entered into another agreement dated 18-4-2005; that the agreement dated 15-4-2005 so mentioned as previously is part of agreement dated 18-4-2005; that at that time petitioner was not in police custody so no coercion or pressure was made; that on the basis of said compromise dated 18-4-2005 interim pre-arrest bail before arrest was confirmed by learned Additional Sessions Judge; that cheque subject matter of. F.I.R. No,1359 of 2005 when was produced before the bank for getting the amount, the bank authority told respondent No,2 that there is a stay order from the Civil Court; that thereafter respondent No,2 approached the Civil Court, got the copies of stay order and it came to the knowledge of respondent No,2 that after availing all the remedies and benefits, the petitioner had obtained stay order from the Civil Court; that ultimately stay obtained by the petitioner was contested by respondent No,2 and same was recalled on 23-11-2005 and only one issue was framed in that suit; that the issue was framed to the effect that "whether suit filed by the petitioner was maintainable in its present form".
'Learned counsel submits that after rejection of stay order, petitioner presented all the cheques before the bank for getting amount but all were dishonoured and respondent was forced to get five F.I.Rs registered against the petitioner; that against the rejection of stay order by civil Court, the petitioner filed appeal before the learned Additional District Judge which was dismissed; that counsel of respondent No,2 had argued the case in the civil Court but till 2009 on one pretext or the other learned counsel for the petitioner did not appear so the civil suit filed by the petitioner could not be concluded; that as learned counsel for the petitioner did not appear before the Civil Court and Civil Court on its own ex parte decided the above said issue on 22-1-2009 and respondent No,2 filed civil revision before the learned Additional District. Judge in which stay has been granted in favour of respondent No,2; that respondent No,2 has argued his case before the learned Additional District Judge but learned counsel for the petitioner did not appear and ex parte proceedings have already been initiated; that petitioner did not approach in this regard to the higher forum for setting aside ex parte proceeding till today; that in view of conduct of the petitioner before the Civil Court and before the learned Additional District Judge no further chance can be given to the petitioner for conclusion of proceedings of the Civil Court pending before the Civil Judge in the suit filed by the petitioner.
' Learned counsel for respondent No,2 further submits that petitioner filed five applications under section 249-A, Cr.P.C. In five criminal cases registered against him but the same were dismissed by learned Magistrate and against those orders petitioner had approached this Court vide Crl.
Revision No,417-M-2007 to Crl. Misc. No,421-M2007 and the same were dismissed by this Court in limine on 2-4-2007. Learned counsel submits that in the instant orders this Court had observed as under:-- "The point which has been raised before this Court needs factual inquiry which cannot be gone into through this petition while in five cases a direction was given by this Court to conclude the trial till 26-3-2007. The impugned order was passed by learned Magistrate on 30-2-2007 and petitioner has approached this Court after more than one month. After having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and going through the impugned order no case for interference is made out, all these petitions are dismissed in limine. Copy of this order be sent to learned trial Court within three days."
' Learned counsel for respondent No,2 submits that against the order passed by this Court in the above-said criminal revision, the petitioner did not approach the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan, so the order passed by this Court dated 2-4-2007 attained finality; that there are eleven criminal cases against the petitioner and in five criminal cases complete evidence has been recorded from both the sides and only arguments are to be addressed. Learned counsel has also referred to the order of my learned brother Asif Saeed Khan Khosa, J. Passed in Crl. Misc. No,8868- CB-2005 which was also referred by learned counsel for the petitioner and she states from sixth line of the top of the order which is as under:-- "Be that as it may any breach of an agreement on the part of respondent No,1 may entail fresh legal proceedings against him but-such a breach cannot be made a basis for undoing something which had lawfully and correctly been done at the time of its doing."
' Learned, counsel submits that petitioner had himself requested before the learned Magistrate during his physical remand that he wanted to enter into compromise with the respondent and learned Magistrate provided him to avail this facility; that four civil suits under Order XXXVII rule 1, C.P.C. Were dismissed on technical ground as the same could not have been filed on non registered form; that for the abovesaid reasons one can say that Court had disbelieved the original facts while dismissing the suits of the respondent No,2 as mentioned above. Further submits that petitioner had also filed petition for special leave to appeal before the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan against the order of abovesaid suits under Order XXXVII rule 1, C.P.C. And same were dismissed; that on the application of the petitioner in T.A. No,53-T-2008, my learned brother Mian Muhammad Najum uz Zaman, J. On 16-5-2008 had given the direction to the criminal Court to conclude the trial within two months; that the criminal Court can decide the case after hearing the arguments from both the sides. She has relied upon 1995 SCM R 1621, 2008 PCr.LJ 469, 2006 SCM R 1192. And 1972 SCMR 85.
3. Learned Deputy Prosecutor General supports the arguments advanced by learned counsel for respondent No,2
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable length and have gone through the record with their able assistance.
5. ' This case has a chequered history. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner issued a cheque, which was dishonoured and a criminal case was registered against him. He was allowed interim bail which was cancelled and after arrest he was -Allowed bail by the learned trial Magistrate A and the respondent approached upto the High Court for its cancellation but remained unsuccessful. After investigation, the petitioner was sent to face the trial and then he started adopting dilatory methods to avoid conclusion of the criminal trial; filed a civil suit, then started moving applications to the trial Court, the appellate Court as also the revisional Court to stay A the proceedings but remained unsuccessful.
' The controversy in issue in this case is whether pendency of civil suit could be a ground to stay criminal proceedings, the answer is 'No' as the law on the subject has now been set at rest by the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Haji Sardar Khalid Saleem v. Muhammad Ashraf and others 2006 SCM R 1192 wherein their lordships of the Honourable Supreme Court on the strength of cases reported as PLD 1985 SC 134 and 1993 SCM R 2177 ruled that criminal proceedings are not barred in presence of civil proceedings and that civil and criminal pro-pceedings can be proceeded simultaneously. The case was registered on 17-12-2005. More than three years have passed but the trial has not yet concluded. It amounts to mockery of law, which cannot be allowed.
' For the fore-going reasons there is no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed. However, the learned trial Magistrate is directed to conclude the trial within two weeks positively and if need be proceed on day to day basis.