1. ' This criminal miscellaneous application is directed against taking of cognizance by the learned 1st Judicial Magistrate, Karachi-South, in Complaint Case No,138 of 1992 under section 449/500, P.P.C.
2. The grievance expressed by the applicants in the present proceedings is that as many as three prosecution witnesses including the complainant have been examined but have not been subjected to cross-examination by their authorised representative. Civil proceedings in respect of the same dispute of dispossession is already pending adjudication before this Court vide Suit No,30 of 1992. Such suit is at the stage of evidence after issues have been framed which are to the effect as to whether there has been illegal dispossession or not. Cross-criminal proceedings are stated to have been initiated by the applicants and both the proceedings had proceeded before the learned trial Court in a manner, as if, under a judicial order, the said proceedings were clubbed together.
3. ' The learned counsel for the applicants contends that in the event, the present proceedings are allowed to continue the same would be an abuse of the process of the Court and the interest of justice would not be secured. It was further contended that no case under the provisions of sections 449 and 500, P.P.C. Could be made out as the charge framed against the applicants is groundless and the applicants have done nothing more than what has been contended by them in the civil proceedings before this Court. He further contends that the complainant in this case has also conceded to the propositions that the applicants were not responsible or that he saw them distributing the pamphlet in question to be defamatory. He further contends that he did not in any manner distribute the pamphlet in question.
4. On the other hand, Mr. Habibur Rasheed, the learned counsel for the State submits that the applicants were afforded two opportunities of cross-examining the prosecution witnesses which were not availed and that proof of defamation and defamatory material has already come on record with three prosecution witnesses having been examined hence, the present quashment would not be securing the ends of justice. Upon a question having been raised by this Court that as the civil proceedings under section 9 of Specific Relief Act, vide Suit No,30 of 1992, are intimately related to the present criminal prosecution then, would it not be fair to stay the criminal proceedings which are old proceedings pending against the applicants since 1992 at least till such time the civil suit is decided and rights of the parties are adjudged. The learned State Counsel very fairly conceds that the interest of justice would be secured if the criminal proceedings pending before the learned trial Court are stayed till the final outcome of Suit No,30 of 1992 pending in this Court.
5. I have carefully considered the submissions made before me by both the learned counsel and upon placing my reliance on the law laid down by the Supreme Court of Pakistan in Mirza Ferozuddin v. Manzoor Ahmed Khan and others 1982 SCM R 988, and keeping in view the fact that even earlier for the same cause, a quashment petition was filed before this Court being Criminal Miscellaneous Application No,1241 of 1992 wherein my brother Salahuddin Mirza, J. (as he then was) had directed the disposal of the criminal prosecution within a maximum period of three months.
6. Such directions were issued as far back on 29-3-1994. It is regrettable that such directions were not complied with timely. In order to suppress mischief, securing the ends of justice and prevent the abuse of process of the Court, I would direct that the proceedings pending before the 1st Judicial Magistrate South-Karachi, be stayed against the applicants till such time that Suit No,30 of 1992 pending in this Court is finally adjudicated. With these directions, Criminal Miscellaneous Application No,36 of 1995 stands disposed of.