The petitioner has filed this petition under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. For the quashment of proceedings pending against him before the Illaqa Magistrate Lahore Cantonment in pursuance to F.I.R. No. 393, dated 26-11-1987 registered under section 419/420/408/471, P.P.C. At Police Station North Cantt., Lahore.
2. The brief facts according to the learned counsel for the petitioner are that an agreement to sell was executed between the petitioner and respondents Nos.2 to 4 on 27-1-1985 for the land measuring 2,213 Kanals and 4 Marlas in Revenue Estate Mauza Kotli Ray Abu Bakar District Kasur for a consideration of Rs.14,75,000. It is further mentioned that at the time of execution of the aforesaid document Rs.75,000 were received by respondents in cash as an earnest money while the balance amount was to be paid by 10-4-1985. He has further stated that the copies of documents were given to the present petitioner by the respondents to verify the title of the aforesaid property.
However, according to him another agreement which is Annexure `B' was executed on 10-4-1985 extending the earlier agreement, dated 27-1-1985 by respondents Nos. 2 to 4 in favour of the petitioner and according to the terms of this agreement rupees eight lac and 25 thousand were given to the respondents Nos. 2 to 4. It is further argued that the respondents also executed lease deed in favour of the petitioner on 10-9-1985 and also a general power of attorney on 7-11-1985. It is the case of the petitioner that the aforesaid general power of attorney was unilaterally got cancelled without any notice to the petitioner on 3-12-1987. It is his case that the respondent No.2 got a case No.393/87 registered on 26-11-1987 under section 419/420/468/471, P.P.C. The challan of this case is pending before the Ilaqa Magistrate Lahore Cantt. The case of the petitioner is that he has filed two suits one for specific performance of the aforesaid agreement, dated 27-1-1985 and 10-4-1985 and another for declaration subsequent to the registration of the case. He has stated that the written statement has been filed in the suit for declaration by the respondents wherein they have admitted the execution of the agreement to sell the disputed land between the parties on 27-1-1985 and the receipt of Rs.75,000. However, they have stated that the aforesaid agreement to sell was cancelled with mutual consent of both the parties and the earnest money of Rs.75,000 received by the respondents Nos. 2 to 4 was returned on 24-6-1985.
3. Learned counsel for the respondents has argued that according to the aforesaid agreement dated 27-1-1985 the present petitioner was to pay the balance amount of Rs.14 lacs till 10-4-1985.
However, according to him both the parties extended the. Period till 24-6-1985 orally and even by that date the present petitioner could not manage the balance amount and hence the agreement to sell was cancelled mutually and the original agreement was returned to the respondents by the petitioner. It is the case of the respondents that they came to know about the spurious general power of attorney, forged lease decd and the aforesaid alleged agreement dated 10-4-1985 during verification and consequently the present criminal case was got registered against the petitioner.
He has argued that this document dated 10-4-1985 is fabricated and spurious and the previous agreement of 27-1-1985 is no more in field as the same was got cancelled mutually on 24-6-1985.
4. I have considered the arguments of both the sides. The execution of agreement, dated 27-1-1985 for tile sale of disputed land has been admitted by both the parties and receipt of earnest money has also been admitted. Thereafter the respondents' counsel has argued that the aforesaid agreement was mutually cancelled and the earnest money was returned. However, this factum has been controverted by the petitioner.
5. Keeping all these factors into consideration I am of the view that the plea of the petitioner for the quashment of criminal proceedings is premature as no evidence whatsoever has been recorded so far. On the other hand the continuance of the criminal proceedings in the facts of the present case would not advance the cause of justice, particularly so when the execution of initial agreement has been admitted by both the parties. Accordingly I stay the criminal proceedings pending against the petitioner as no useful purpose would be served by allowing the same to continue side by side with the civil proceedings when its Resultantly the prayer of the quashment is declined but the proceedings pending before the Criminal Court is stayed till the outcome of civil proceedings. The petition stand disposed of accordingly.
M.Y.H./M-1401/L