' SH. RIAZ AHMED, J.---Leave to appeal is sought against the judgment and order, dated 28-10-1999 whereby an Intra-Court Appeal filed by the petitioner against the dismissal of the writ petition was dismissed.
2. The facts in brief giving rise to the institution of this petition are that the petitioner was proceeded against in the Court of a Judicial Magistrate at Pind Dadan Khan on the charges under section 420/468/471, P.P.C. The F.I.R. In this case was lodged by the Administrative Manager of the ICI Pakistan Ltd., Khewra and it was alleged in the F.I.R. That the petitioner was holding the office of the Manager (Accounts) and the charge of the stores in the said company. As a result of audit conducted on 19-12-1999 it transpired that the petitioner had dishonestly and fraudulently prepared forged documents and used them as genuine to withdraw huge amounts from the accounts of the company through cheques drawn on the Muslim Commercial Bank, Pind Dadan Khan and the money so received was misappropriated. Details of cheques were given in the F.I.R. It was alleged that a sum of Rs.4,941,288 had been misappropriated.
3. The petitioner invoked the Constitutional jurisdiction of the Lahore High Court to allege that the Judicial Magistrate at Pind Dadan Khan had no jurisdiction to hold the trial of the petitioner, inasmuch as the offence alleged to have been committed was exclusively triable by a Court constituted under the Offences in Respect of Banks (Special Courts) Ordinance, 1984. Precisely, it was contended that the offences fell in the 1st Schedule to the Ordinance IX of 1984 as scheduled offences and secondly they were committed in respect of or in connection with the business of the bank.
4. It may be stated here that the respondent No.2 also instituted a civil suit for the cancellation of power of attorney executed by the petitioner in his favour. In addition thereto another, suit under Order XXXVII, C.P.C. Was also filed and leave to defend was refused against which Regular First Appeal No.180 of 1997 was pending. It was also alleged by the petitioner that after so-called audit the petitioner was coerced and intimidated to execute certain documents. The petitioner was also made to execute a promissory note and was forced to create equitable mortgage of his house in Faisal Towri. It was also alleged by the petitioner that he was also made sign general power of attorney and to execute an affidavit to secure the alleged embezzled amount and a cheque was also got signed from the petitioner. All this happened on 12-2-1995 and on the very next day the petitioner instituted a civil suit in the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Pind Dadan Khan for cancellation of all the documents obtained by the respondent-company from the petitioner through coercion and undue influence. The petitioner also revoked the power of attorney and the civil suit is pending. In retaliation, as already stated above, the respondent-company has also filed a civil suit.
5. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner at length and having gone through all the relevant facts, the transaction allegedly has given rise to the institution of criminal as well as civil proceedings and both are pending and in such-like cases it is now settled law to stay the criminal proceedings till the conclusion of the civil proceedings. We are fortified in this view by a judgment of this Court reported as Muhammad Akbar v. The State and another (PLD 1968 SC 281), but keeping in view the peculiar circumstances of the case, we would direct that the trial of criminal charges in this case shall proceed, but the final judgment shall not be announced till the conclusion of the civil proceedings. The petition is disposed of accordingly.