1. ' SYED ZAWWAR HUSSAIN JAFFERI, J.---It is inter alia contended that F.I.R. Was lodged on 31-12-2006 at about 10 p.m. Whereas incident had taken place on 28-11-2006 at 10-30 a.m. At the behest of complainant Rocky Hamilton Parker. It is further alleged that there is dispute between the landlord in Suit No,1335/2006 filed by the applicant against landlord which is pending in the Court of law and as a counter-blast the complainant has also filed suit No,1591 of 2006 in this Court with false and bogus pleadings and the contents of the pleadings of the F.I.R. As narrated by the complainant are contradictory. The cheques were dishonestly passed by the complainant to the applicants and in view of the denial factum of position by the landlord the applicants instituted another suit of 2006 which has not been numbered in this Court. The applicant instituted Suit No,1335 of 2006 on 18-11- 2006 and alleged incident took place on 28-11-2006 which, reflects clear mala fide on the part of complainant. It is argued that on 28-11-2006 the landlord and complainant admitted to dispossess the applicants, the applicants informed area police and then intervened and applicants were protected by them from dispossession. The complainant party with mala fide intention in order to humiliate and insult the applicant has filed F.I.R. No,1050 of 2006 to drag the applicants without lawful justification.
2. ' Haji Abdul Majeed learned State counsel has opposed the application and submitted that a civil litigation is pending in the Court of law between the parties.
3. ' I have heard arguments of learned counsel for the respective parties.
4. ' Admittedly, the civil litigation between the parties is pending in the Court of law and institution of F.I.R. No,1050 of 2006 is a counterblast and F.I.R. Was lodged after considerable delay which has not been explained properly. As per documents it appears that complainant is not owner of the property but he left the rented premises after termination of tenancy and a dispute is pending by filing of Suit No, 1335 of 2006 filed by the applicant against landlord whereas a counter-blast. Suit No, 1591 of 2006 has been filed by the complainant.
5. ' In view of the above position, the interim pre-arrest bail is confirmed on the same terms and conditions. The applicants are directed to associate with investigation as and when directed.