The facts giving rise to this petition are that a sale-deed embodying the transfer of certain land by Mst. Sharifan Begum in favour of Nazir Ahmad, was registered on 27th January, 1975. The petitioner, Gulzar Ahmad identified the vendee at the time of registration of the sale-deed. Mst. Sharifan Begum, acting through her husband, namely. Muhammad Ibrahim questioned the validity of the sale-deed contending that it was never executed by her and was procured by Nazir Ahmad by means of fraud and misrepresen--tation. Consequently, at the instance of Muhammad Ibrahim, a case under sections 467, 468 and 420 of the Pakistan Penal Code was registered against certain persons. Later, the petitioner was also involved in that case as an accused person. After investigating the case the police referred the matter to a Magistrate with the request that the accused be discharged. Accordingly, an order discharging the accused was passed by the learned Magistrate on 20th January, 1978. Thereafter, the police sought permission of the Magistrate to re- investigate the matter stating that the orders of discharge had been passed in the absence of the accused. This request was acceded to by the learned Magistrate and fresh investigation was allowed. After investigating the case again, the accused, including the petitioner, were sent up to stand trial on the aforesaid charges. On this, the accused made an application under section 249, Cr. P. C. For seeking their acquittal. It was, however, dismissed by the learned Magistrate by his order, dated the 23 December, 1981. The order of the learned Magistrate was challenged by means of a revision petition, but in vain. The petitioner, has therefore, invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
3. At the time of admission of this petition for regular hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner raised the following pleas:--rd
(i) Since the petitioner had been discharged in the first instance, he could not be prosecuted again. .
(ii) The matter involved in the criminal case is also the subject-matter of a civil suit, which is pending decision.
Today, when the case came up before me for final hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner did not press his plea regarding the earlier discharge of the petitioner. 1, therefore, need not go into the same.
3. As for the other contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that a civil suit relating to the sale-dead in question is pending decision, it was not denied by the learned counsel for the State or learned counsel for aforesaid Muhammad Ibrahim, who is respondent No. 2 in the instant petition, that the said suit is being heard by a Civil Judge. All the learned counsel before me are unanimous that the said suit has been filed by Nazir Ahmad for possession of the aforementioned land. His suit is based on the sale-deed, referred to above. Mst. Sharifan Begum is the only defendant in the suit and she has challenged the validity of the sale on the ground of fraud, misrepresentation etc. Learned counsel for the petitioner has, therefore, prayed that proceedings in the criminal case may be stayed till the disposal of the civil suit. In this connection reliance was placed by him on Raja Muhammad Akram Khan v. The State and another (PLD 1976 Lab. 214).
4. In reply, it was submitted by learned counsel for respondent No. 2 that the civil suit was filed by Nazir Ahmad as a counterblast to the criminal prosecution and, therefore, proceedings in the criminal case may not be stayed. It was also pointed out by him that initially Nazir Ahmad filed a suit for permanent injunction but when it was found that he was not in possession of the disputed land, he withdrew that suit with permission to file a fresh one and then filed the suit for possession.
In view of this conduct of Nazir Ahmad, according. To the learned counsel for respondent No. 2, the petitioner was not entitled to the relief asked for in the instant petition. In order to distinguish the case of Raja Muhammad Akram Khan it was submitted by the learned counsel for respondent No. 2 that in the case under report the civil suit was brought before the filing of the criminal complaint, but in the instant case, F. I. R. Was lodged before the institution of the civil suit.
5. Learned counsel for the State (respondent No. 1) endorsed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for respondent No. 2.
6. While commenting on the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respondents, it was pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is not named in the F.
1. Ft. It was also pleaded by him that since the main question involved in the criminal. Case as well as in the civil suit was one and the same, and it is for the civil Court to adjudicate upon the question relating to genuineness of the sale-deed, proceedings in the criminal case deserved to be stayed even though the suit was filed after making of the F. I. R.
7. Undoubtedly the F. I. R. Was lodged before the civil suit was instituted, but the petitioner is not named in the F. I. R. As indicated above, in the first instance, the criminal case based on the F. I. R.
Was discharged at the instance of the police. Thereafter the matter was investigated afresh and the accused, including the petitioner were sent up to face trial. It is disputed that before the accused was summoned, in consequence of the challan submitted to the Court, the civil suit had been filed. The principal question involved in the civil suit and the criminal case is with regard to the genuineness of the sale-deed. Therefore, following the principle laid down in the case of Raja Muhammad Aram Khan and keeping in view the circumstances of the instant case, I am inclined to stay proceedings in the criminal case till the disposal of the civil suit. I, therefore, order that proceedings in the criminal case shall remain stayed during the pendency of the civil suit brought by Nazir Ahmad. The learned Civil Judge seized of the suit is, however, directed to decide the suit expeditiously, and in any case within six months, without fail. The petition in hand is disposed of accordingly.