1. ' ZAHID HAMID, J.---By this order M.A. No, 117/2010 which has been filed for suspension of proceedings in Case No,232 of 2006 shall stand disposed of along with the main Criminal Miscellaneous Application under section 561-A, Cr.P.C.
2. ' The grievance of the applicant is that after losing a Civil Suit No,872/95 for specific performance in respect of immovable property the defendant has been implicated in a criminal case arising out of more or less the same cause of action except that now 8 to 9 fictitious persons have also been joined and roped in abuse of the process of Court.
3. ' Learned counsel for the applicant argued that despite the fact the civil suit filed by the complainant Inam Fazal for Specific Performance in respect of the subject property was dismissed under Order XVII, Rule 3, C.P.C. And the appeal yet the assailed criminal proceedings under section 448, P.P.C. Were filed much later.
4. ' Heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that an F.I.R.
5. No,568 of 2006 was lodged on 30th July, 2006 against the applicants under sections 448/457/149/427 and 337-A(i), P.P.C. He further argued that in the F.I.R. It has been falsely stated that the said suit was pending though it had already been dismissed. Learned counsel states that this is flagrant abuse of process of the Court and is hit by the principle akin to autre fois acquit. He has vehemently objected that on every date of hearing before the learned lower Court a private prosecutor appears in place of the State counsel and he has assumed the latter's role and has entirely taken over the case of prosecution and if it were so desired a private complaint should have been filed instead. Learned counsel submits that there is no single independent witness and all the so-called witnesses are close relatives, whereas 8 to 9 persons have been roped along with the applicant though they are non-existent in order to lend credibility to false case. Learned counsel has relied upon 1992 PCr.LJ 1085 (Faqir Muhammad and others v. Ch. Ali Muhammad and others), 1992 PCr.LJ 229, (Sh.
6. Muhammad Shafique and others v. Abdul Hamid and another, 1987 SCMR 795, (Muhammad Ali v.
7. Assistant Commissioner), 2004 PCr.LJ 1746, AIR 1959 447 (sic), 1992 SCMR 1436 and PLD 1951 Sindh 29, to support his contentions.
8. Though I am persuaded by the contentions of the learned counsel for the applicant yet the fact remains that an application under section 249-A, Cr.P.C. Was dismissed by the learned trial Court and the revision filed later before the learned District and Sessions Judge (East) too has been dismissed on 31-8-2009. Learned counsel for the applicant states that though consent was given verbally by the learned APG for grant of application under section 249-A, Cr.P.C. Yet the learned trial Court ignored such concession legally due and extended. Indeed if it is so the learned Court below shall try its best to remain mindful of what transpires in the Court.
9. ' Be that as it may, with the consent of the learned counsel, it is ordered that no private prosecutor shall conduct the proceedings on behalf of the complainant but he could only assist the prosecution in presence of the learned DDA. Learned trial Court under the circumstances is directed to conclude the trial within two months after receipt of this order and to report compliance.
10. ' Accordingly the above Criminal Miscellaneous Application stands disposed of in the terms stated above.