FAZAL KARIM, J.- This petition under Section 651-A of the Cr.P.C, by Zafar Ahmad, petitioner, has arisen in the following circumstances.
2. On 8.12.19S0, Abdul Hakeem, respondent, instituted a criminal complaint under section 379, 403, 419 and 420 of the PPC against Zafar Ahmad, petitioner, It was alleged that the complainant was the exclusive owner of Pakistan MuItiple Industries, A.D. Tanneries Road, Koat Lakhpat, Lahore; that the petitioner was a tenant of the complainant in a residential portion of the upper storey of the factory; that as the petitioner did not pay the rent, their relations were strained; that the complainant supplied Aluminium Ingots to the Ministry of Defence and submitted a bill against which cheque No.556020 dated 4.9.1980 was issued in the name of the complainant; that the petitioner "with a malafide intention by committing pesonation and thereby dishonestly deceiving the post man by cheating received the above mentioned cheque "and that after receiving the amount of Rs.33000/- through the bank, the petitioner "dishonestly misappropriate and concerts to his own use the entire amount".
3. The petitioner's case on the other hand is that he was a partner in the firm Pakistan MuItiple Industries and if he had received the sum of Rs.33000/- in that capacity, he had committed no offence.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner docs not press the prayer for the quashment of the proceedings. Relying upon Muhammad Akbar Vs. The State and Moulvi Muhammad Yasin Khan (PLD 1968 Supreme Court 281), he, however argues that the procedings in the criminal complaint should be stayed till the decision of the civil litigation between the parties, In that connection, he has shown me a judgment of the learned Civil Judge, Lahore, dated 7.4.1986, to point out that the petitioner had instituted a civil suit for rendition of accounts against the complainant as partner of Pakistan MuItiple Industries; that in that suit, the question whether the petitioner was or was not a partner of the firm was raised and decided in the petitioner's favour and that an appeal against that judgment and decree of the learned Civil Court is pending. The judgment does show that the petitioner had founded his claim for the rendition of accounts upon his being a partner in the firm Pakistan MuItiple Industries; that the complainant had claimed that he was the exclusive owner of the firm and that the question that the petitioner was a partner in the firm was decided in the petitioner's favour. In Muhammad Akbar's case, the accused person was alleged to have committed the theft of a motor-bus. The accused, however, claimed to be a partner of the firm, in whose name, the motor-bus stood registered and a civil suit for the dissolution of partnership and rendition of accounts was pending. It was observed that until the ownership of the motor-bus was decided, "it cannot be said that it had been wrongfully taken away from the possession of Mulla Abdul Karim. Now this question of ownership of the vehicle is itself sub judicc. Its fate will depend upon the final decree in the suit for dissolution of partnership. If it is awarded to Mulla Abdul Karim then and only then will his ownership be established" and, therefore, that was a case in which the subject matter of the dispute in the criminal litigation was dependent upon the decision in the civil litigation. It was held that "where it is clear that the criminal liability is dependent upon the resuIt of the Civil Litigation or is so intimately connected with it and there is a danger of grave injustice being done in the case if there be a conflict of decision between the Civil Court and the Criminal Court has not only the right to but should also stay its hands untill the Civil Litigation is disposed of, for, it is not desirable that when the title to the property itself is in dispute, the Criminal Courts should give a finding in respect of the same question". Here, too, the real dispute between the parties concerns the ownership of the cheque No.556020 and the question is whether the petitioner had received it in his capacity of the partner of the firm. That question was sub judicc in the Civil Court and was decided in the pcilitioner's favour and is now sub judice in the District Court is not disputed. An appeal being a continuation of the suit, the facts of this are, in my view, plainly within the principle of law laid down in the precedent case. I would, therefor, direct that the criminal proceeding in the complaint case shall remain stayed till the decision of the civil suit pending between the parties. The petition is disposed of accordingly.