This is a petition under section 561-A, Cr. P. C. By Roshan Din Bhatti, Petitioner, for quashment of criminal proceedings pending against him under section 500, P. P. C. In the Court of Mr. Aurangzeb Khan, Magis--trate, 1st Class, Lahore.
2. The brief facts of the case are that on 2nd December, 1978 Ehsanul Haq, respondent No. 2, lodged a private complaint against Roshan Din Bhatti, petitioner, under section 500/501. P. P. C. Before the 11aqa Magistrate alleging that he with his brother Khalid Pervez was jointly running for the last 42 years a photographer's shop named 'Khalid Studio' in shop No. 416/13, R. A. Bazar, Lahore Cantonment which said shop was owned by the petitioner and was under their tenancy. He further alleged that the petitioner in order to harass them started receiving the electricity bills of the said shop directly himself which gave a reasonable apprehension of fear to them that in case the bills were not passed to them their electricity could be cut off in default of payment of the bills. 1t was further alleged that in order to prevent such a situation form arising, his brother had filed a suit for permanent injunction in the civil Court restraining the petitioner from receiving the electricity bills of the shop direct and that on 30th October, 1978 after arguments in the said case were concluded and the parties came out in the verandah of the Court the petitioner in fury loudly shouted at him calling him an electricity thief and a fraudulent person, and alleged that he was stealing electricity for the use of his studio and that he had already sent a complaint to WAPDA against his brother. He further alleged that the said defamatory words were also heard by Muhammad Tayyab, and M.
Munir Ahmad and his Advocate. He further alleged that the petitioner had on 13th September, 1973 sent a complaint to WAPD.A alleging that the electricity was being stolen by his photogra--phic studio, which allegations after inquiry were found to be false. The respondent, therefore. Alleged that he had been damaged by the petitioner and that action should be taken against him under section 500/501, P. P. C. After recording preliminary evidence the learned Magistrate issued a notice to the petitioner to face trial under section 500, P. P. C. Being aggrieved by the initiation of criminal proceedings against him the petitioner preferred a petition for quashment in this Court which is now before me for disposal.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his petition submitted that Ehsanul Haq, respondent No. 2 was not a "partner of "Khalid Studio", as alleged, but that his brother Khalid Parvez was the sole proprietor of the said studio. 1n the said connection the learned coun--sel referred to a copy of the plaint (Annexed -- D' to the petition) lodged by the said Khalid Parvez himself against his client in which plaint in para I thereof, the said Khalid Parvez had admitted that be was the sole tenant of the said shop in which he was running the studio known as "Khalid Studio". He further referred to a copy of the plaint in the suit filed by Khalid Parvez against the petitioner claiming Rs.
15,000 as compensation for defamation (Annexure 'G' to the petition), in which suit in para. 7 he referred to himself as a sole proprietor of Khalid Studio. The learned counsel also submitted that the said Khalid Parvez having himself filed a suit for compensation for defamation before the Civil Court at Lahore against his client relating to the same incident which took place in the verandah outside the Civil Court premises on 30th October, 1978 and the same letter written by his client to WAP DA on 13th September, 1978, it was urged that the criminal proceedings initiated by Ehsanul Haq, reason--dent No. 2 the brother of Khalid Parvez, were false and malacious and intented to harass the petitioner. In the said connection it was further contended that even asserting that the allegations of Ehsanul Haq, reason--dent No. 2, were accepted as correct, then the institution of the civil suit relating to defamation by one partner prevented the institution of the criminal proceedings relating to the same matter by the other partner in respect of the same cause of action. In the light of these cumulative sub--missions, it was prayed that the criminal proceedings against the petitioner be quashed or in the alternative the criminal proceedings be stayed pending the disposal of the civil suit for compensation filed by Khalid Parvez against the petitioner was finally decided.
4. The learned counsel for Ehsanul Haq, respondent No. 2, who strongly opposed the petition submitted that since his client and Khalid Parvez were real brothers, both ran the shop jointly and since both were defamed by the slanderous accusations made by the petitioner in the verandah of the Civil Court on 30th, October, 1978 and in the petitioner's letter to WAPDA dated 13th September, 1978, both had the right of bringing an action in the Civil and Criminal Court against the petitioner in respect of the same and that, therefore, the institution of the civil suit filed by Khalid Parvez in the said connection in the Civil Court on 8th July, 1978 did not prevent the initiation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner by his client in respect of the said matter. In these, circum-- stances, he submitted that the petition deserved to be dismissed.
5. From a perusal of the copies of the two plaints (Annexure 'D' & `C' to the petition) in respect of the two civil suits lodged by Khaild Pervez against the petitioner in the Civil Court at Lahore, it appears that Khalid Parvez is the sole proprietor of Khalid Studio being run in shop No. 416/3 R. A. Bazar Lahore Cantonment, which shop is held under sole tenancy by him. Copy of the plaint in the civil suit for compensation for defamation lodged by Khalid Parvez against the petitioner (Annexure 'C'.
To the Petition see paras. 7 and 13) already shows that the suit is based on the slanderous accusation made by the petitioner to Khalid Parvez in the verandah of the Civil Court on 30th October, 1978 and in the letter written by him to WAPDA on 13th September, 1978. This would, therefore, prima facie show that the statement of Ehsanul Haq, respondent No. 2, in his private complaint that he was jointly running his shop with his brother and that they were in joint possession of the same as tenants of the petitioner and that the petitioner slandered him outside the Court on 30th October, 1978 are untrue. However, assuming for the purposes of this petition that it be conceded that responded No. 2 and Khalid Parvez were both jointly running the disputed shop which they were holding as joint tenants under the petitioner and that respondent No. 2 was defamed outside the Civil Court on 30th October, 1978 then it would appear that one partner has lodged a civil suit against the petitioners claiming compensation for defa--mation in a civil Court relating to the incident which occurred outside the Civil Court on 30th October, 1978 and the letter written by the petitioner on 13th September, 1978 and the other partner has filed criminal proceed-- ings for defamation against the same petitioner in respect of the same cause of action. Since in law a partner must be treated as acting for and on behalf of his partnership firm it would appear that the partnership firm through its partners is seeking both civil and criminal remedies against the same person relating to the same cause of action touching defamation. It cannot be denied that both in the civil suit and in the private criminal complaint, the same common questions are bound to arise, namely, whether the petitioner did utter the slanderous words as alleged in the verandah of the Court on 30th October, 1978 and did write the letter to WAPDA A dated 13th September, 1978 and, so, whether they were slanderous or defamatory and did harm the reputation of respondent No. 2 and/or his brother. In these circumstances, there is every likelihood that the civil and the Criminal Courts may give conflicting findings on these questions.1 In order to obviate such a debacle, it would appear to be necessary .In the interest of justice to stay the criminal proceedings till the civil suit institu--ted by Khalid Parvez against the petitioner is finally decided. In these circumstances, the petitioner has made out a ease for suspension of the criminal proceedings.
6. For the foregoing reasons, this petition is partly accepted and the criminal proceedings pending against Roshan Din Bhatti, petitioner, in the Court of Mr. Aurangzeb Khan, Magistrate, 1st Class, Lahore, are hereby stayed pending the final disposal of the suit instituted by Khalid Pervez against the petitioner in the Civil Court at Lahore claiming compensation for defamation.
Criminal Proceedings staved.