' SARDAR MUHAMMAD RAZA KHAN, J.---In compliance with the order, dated 2-7-1997 passed by the learned Sessions Judge Abbottabad in revision, the learned Civil Judge Abbottabad, on 14-11-1997 filed a complaint under section 200, Cr.P.C. Against Muhammad Akram, charging him under section 193/209/419/420/465/466/468/471/474, P.P.0 . Read with section 195, Cr.P.C.
2. The background of the case is that Muhammad Akram petitioner filed a suit for declaration- cum-possession of certain property against Mir Afzal respondent on 11-2-1996. After the submission of written statement by Mir Afzal, the plaintiff through application, dated 18-9-1996 got the suit dismissed as withdrawn.
3. After the dismissal of the above suit Mir Afzal brought a suit for damages on 30-9-1996 against Muhammad Akram which is still pending before the trial Court. On 29-9-1996 Mir Afzal, the plaintiff of the subsequent suit filed an application before the first Court under section 195, Cr.P.C. That a complaint, as above, be filed against Muhammad Akram, the plaintiff of the first suit. Such application was dismissed but accepted in revision and the criminal proceedings were directed to be initiated.
4. h is a matter of record as well as arguments that the first suit was based on an agreement which, in all circumstances, would be and is a weapon of defence in the subsequent suit for damages. The genuineness or otherwise of such agreement would determine not only the fate of the suit for damages but also the need or otherwise to initiate criminal proceedings. When the real matter in controversy and when the principal document disputed between the parties is a matter strongly sub judice before the trial Court, how on earth, any criminal proceedings can be initiated so prematurely and at a stage when the substantial matter involved is sub judice. It is likely to give rise to a contradictory phenomenon and one can well imagine the fate of criminal proceedings in case the Court holds the agreement deed to be genuine ultimately. Needless to mention that criminal proceedings at this sub judice stage would amount to putting undue influence and exercising coercion against Muhammad Akram plaintiff of the first suit.
5. The writ petition is accepted and the criminal proceeings are directed to be kept pending till the final decision of the suit for damages filed by the respondent and also till the decision of suit for specific performance of contract reportedly filed now by the petitioner Muhammad Akram.