' Sher Afzal Khan and others had filed a suit for possession of a disputed property through redemption against Mst. Rapay Jani, Mir Kawaz Khan and Rehmatullah Khan etc. Which, at the first instance, was decreed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Bannu on 4-10-1996. It was subsequently remanded and the trial became pending once again.
2. During trial the plaintiffs brought on record an agreement deed, dated 1-1-1989. The proceedings were pending before the trial Court arid the evidence also stood considerably recorded when on 4- 6-1997. Dil Nawaz Khan filed a complaint under section 193/195, P.P.C. Read with 476, Cr.P.C. That the opposite party had filed a forged fictitious and bogus agreement deed, dated 1-1-1989 and that they be prosecuted summarily and convicted under section 193/195, P.P.C. With powers of the Court derived from section 476, Cr.P.C.
3. The learned trial Judge/Senior Civil Judge, Bannu declined to proceed as per order, dated 3-10- 1997 on the ground that the trial was pending due to having been remanded and that unless the document was declared to be forged or fictitious by the trial Court, no proceedings could be taken under section 476, Cr.P.C. The opposite party went in revision, heard by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bannu who took the view by accepting the revision petition, that the trial Court should hold the proceedings under section 476, Cr.P.C. Mir Kawaz Khan etc. Through this petition under section 561-A, Cr.P.C.' seek the abashment of the order, dated 8-1-1998 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bannu.
4. It requires no stretch of arguments at all to comprehend that once the trial Court holds the view that the document was forged and fictitious, it would amount to a strong expression of opinion and no room would be left for the same Court to hold otherwise while giving final judgment in the original civil suit. The holding of proceedings at this stage would not only amount to harassing one of the parties to the suit pending before the trial Court but would rather put the trial Court to a material embarrassm ent.
5. On the other hand, if the trial is completed and a judgment is pronounced with regard to the actual civil dispute between the parties and with regard to the agreement, dated 1-1-1989, it would neither be embarrassing for the Court to take up proceedings under section 476, Cr.P.C. Nor would it be jeopardizing for a party to the dispute. As the verdict of civil Court in the matter of deed, dated 1-1-1989 is more predominant and decisive rather than any proceedings taken in its criminal jurisdiction, it is advisable that the former verdict should come first in the light of evidence and the latter proceedings should be taken subsequently. To uphold the impugned order would amount to putting the Court before the horse.
6. Consequently the proceedings proposed to be taken under section 476, Cr.P.C. Are not quashed but are directed to be kept pending till the final judgment of the Civil Court. The pronouncement of final judgment and the initiating of proceedings under section 476, Cr.P.C. In case it is justified in view of the verdict, can even be taken up simultaneously. The petition is accepted partially and accordingly.