Sh. Ahmad petitioner in Cr. Misc. 2736 of 1969 and Sh. Mohd. Younas respondent therein have been transacting business which has led to civil and criminal litigation between them. Respondent Sh.
Mohd. Younas filed a complaint against Sh. Ahmad petitioner under section 406/417/420, P. P. C.
Which is pending in the Court of the A. D. M., Lyallpur and of which the proceedings are- sought to be quashed. In addition to this he has also filed a civil suit against Sh. Ahmad aforesaid for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 53,906.25 which is pending in the civil Court at Lyallpur. On the other hand, Sh. Ahmad petitioner has filed a suit for rendition of accounts against Sh. Mohd. Younas and others which is pending in the Court of Malik Mohd. Ramazan, Civil Judge, Lyallpur.
2. After Cr. Misc. 2736 of 1969 filed by Sh. Ahmad was admitted to a full hearing, he also filed Cr.
Misc. 4009 of 1969 seeking his exemption from Court attendance in the same criminal case pending against him at Lyallpur.
3. Sh. Mohammad Younas in his capacity as Special Attorney of Sheikh Oil 'and General Mills, Madanpura, Lyallpur, has filed a C. M. 3291 of 1969 seeking transfer of the case pending against him in the Court of Administrative Civil Judge, Sahamal, to the Court of Malik Mohd. Ramran, Civil Judge, Lyallpur; where the case filed by him for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 53,906.25 against Sh. Ahmad is already pending. In this, notice has been accepted by Ch. M. A. Buttar on behalf' of both the respondents, namely, Rice Mills and Cotton Ginning Factory and Mr. Sh. Ahmad.
4. This order will dispose of all the criminal and civic matters which are connected in the sense that they are pending between the same parties. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I am clearly of the view that no case is made out for quashing of criminal proceedings siropiy on the ground that civil litigation is also pending between the parties. However, it would be pertinent to consider the question of the stay of these proceedings till the disposal of the civil cases pending between the parties. In support of this learned counsel has drawn my attention to Muhammad Akbar v. The State and another (PLD1968SC281) and N. Manak Ji v. Fakhar Iqbal and another (196 SCMR 98) wherein their Lordships have held that in cases which are intimately connected with a view to avoid a possibility of conflicting decisions, it would be appro--priate to stay criminal proceedings till the decision of the civil matters. While agreeing with this legal proposition learned counsel for the respondents contends that the stay of proceedings would place Sheikh Ahmad petitioner in an unfairly advantageous position inasmuch as the civil litigation might continue for years together. It is contended that Sh. Muhammad Younas had paid .In cash a huge amount of Rs.
53,906.25 for the payment of which a cheque was issued which was dishonoured, and as such, the stay of proceedings would amount to grant of impunity to him to misappropriate such a huge amount without apprehension of any legal consequences at least for seven to eight years.
5. Having considered the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that while, on the one hand, the propriety of the stay of criminal proceedings cannot be denied, the respondents' point of view has also to be kept in view. This can be satisfactorily arranged if the to civil cases : one pending at Lyallpur ; and the other at Sahiwal, which presumably involve some common questions of fact and law are consolidated in any Court with a direction for their expedi-- tious disposal. Such a consolidation is not acceptable to the parties either at Lyallpur or at Sahiwal.
Both, however, suggest that the to cases be transferred to Lahore, where they would have the advantage of best legal assistance being available to them. It is accordingly directed that the criminal proceedings in a case under section 406/417/420, P. P. C. Pending against Sh. Ahmad in the Court of A. D. M., Lyallpur,, are stayed and the petitioner need not attend that Court till further orders.
6. With regard to the transfer of the to civil suits pending between the parties, a separate order has been passed in Civil Misc. No. 3291 of 1969 transferring both the cases to Lahore, as requested by the parties.