Nisar Hussain Khan, J.--Impugned herein is Letter No, 3746/ACE, dated 05.04.2012, issued by Respondent No, 2 (Director Anti-Corruption Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Peshawar), whereby case F.I.R No, 8, dated 16.12.2011, registered under Sections 419/420/468/471, P.P.C. read with 5(2) P.C., Act, Police Station, Anti-Corruption Establishment, Karak, has been ordered to be kept pending, till disposal of civil suit of petitioner.
2. We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record with their valuable assistance.
3. The record divulges that Mr. Sher Abbas was serving in Pakistan Army and was martyred during "Swat Operation", due to which his legal heirs were offered "Martyrdom Package/Shaheed Pakage".
The deceased had provided the names of his issues in his service record of Pakistan Army, wherein three sons including one Jasim Abbas and three daughters, have been shown, as his legal heirs.
The names of his children along with their dates of birth are also mentioned in the said record, according to which, Jasim Abbas is shown as his eldest son, whereas, rest of his five children are younger than him. At the time of disbursement of benefit of "Shaheed Pakage", dispute arose that Jasim Abbas is not the son of the martyred Sher Abbas, rather his name was mentioned by the deceased in his service record, just out of love and affection, being his nephew, when he himself had no issue. But the same was resisted and on petitioner's complaint, F.I.R No, 8, mentioned- above, was registered at Police Station ACE, Karak. It is elaborately mentioned in the F.I.R that on written application of the petitioner, an inquiry was conducted and one Qabil Rehman, brother-in- law of the petitioner, collusively tried to show his own son Jasim Abbas, as one of the legal heirs of his martyred brother, to get the benefit of "Shaheed Pakage" and other benefits of deceased's service as well as the ancestral property, in connivance with Niamatullah Secretary Union Council Metha Khel, Muhammad Zubair S.S. GHSS Jandri, Mansoor Ahmad Ex.DDO (Education Karak), Samar Badshah Head Teacher Primary School Kanda Baji Khel Karak, Muhammad Ali Superintendent and Mst. Nabila Nasir (Ex-Principal Fuji Foundation School Karak), with mala fide and ulterior motive and thereby procured Birth Certificate, School Certificate of Jasim Abbas, containing the name of his father as Sher Abbas, instead of Qabil Rehman and consequently Jasim Abbas was also included as legal heir in deceased's inheritance Mutation No, 2087 dated 24.01.2011, which was later on, cancelled on 25.04.2011, by review order of the Revenue Officer. It was concluded by the Circle Officer of Police Station ACE, Karak that all the accused have committed the crime mentioned in the F.I.R.
4. After registration of the case, respondents were legally obliged to proceed with the investigation and submit final report before the competent Court of law against the accused. But instead thereof, Respondent No, 2, issued the impugned letter to Assistant Director Crimes Respondent No, 4, to keep the F.I.R., pending till decision of the civil suit, which has been filed by the petitioner seeking declaration as well as perpetual and mandatory injunction against all the concerned persons and departments for correction of their record with regard to paternity of said Jasim Abbas, where he has been shown the son of martyred Sher Abbas, instead of Qabil Rehman.
5. Admittedly, criminal and civil proceedings, with regard to the same event have different connotation. By way of criminal proceedings, a wrongdoer is get punished for the crime. Through civil proceedings a civil right of an aggrieved person, usurped by the wrongdoer, is retrieved. On this premises, it is always assumed that, there is no legal bar on initiation of the two parallel proceedings, against the same person. However, as a rule of caution and prudence, if fate of criminal proceedings is dependent on the result of the civil proceedings, the criminal proceedings are stayed, till final adjudication of the Civil Court. However, discretion rests with the Court to decide, in view of the facts of each case, as to whether both the proceedings should continue or otherwise. There is no hard and fast rule for stay of criminal proceedings, till decision of the civil suit. Both can proceed independently. However, this is a matter to be decided by the Courts, not by the Investigating Agency. In the instant case, the respondents have stopped the investigation on the F.I.R, who have no such authority to do so. Respondents were legally obliged to proceed with the investigation of the case and submit their final report before the competent Court of law. It was for the Court to decide as to whether the criminal proceedings should concurrently proceed with the civil suit or otherwise. The respondents have got no lawful authority to stop the proceedings. If the analogy advanced by the respondents, is approved, there is every likelihood of destruction, vanishing or disappearance of material and important evidence, which can be instantly collected during investigation. By the impugned act of stoppage of investigation, on the part of the respondents, the prospective damage has been allowed to occur and thereby they have failed to perform their legal obligation.
6. For what has been discussed above, by allowing instant writ petition, the impugned order of the respondent issued vide impugned letter is declared as illegal, unlawful and having been passed without lawful authority, causing grave miscarriage of justice.' Consequently, the respondents are directed to proceed with the investigation of the case and submit their final report before the competent Court of law against the accused, within shortest possible time, but not later than a fortnight of this order.