' Through this Constitutional petition, the petitioner seeks quashment of F.I.R. No,123 of 2001 registered on 21-5-2001 at Police Station Saddar, Muridke on the statement of Muhammad Younas under section 406, P.P.C.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner alongwith the complainant used to do business of carpets. The amount of Rs,1,68,000 is outstanding against him and agreement to sell according to the complainant has also been executed between the parties. The complainant claims that the fraud has been committed and on this F.I.R. Has been lodged.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the agreement has been got signed by force by the complainant and agreement, dated 2-8-2000 has been challenged in civil suit filed by the petitioner in the Court of Civil Judge, Daska. Agreement to sell is subject-matter of the civil suit in which the notices are issued to the complainant for 5-10-2000. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that after the receipt of the notices and after coming to know about the pendency of the civil suit filed by the petitioner, this F.I.R. Has been got lodged with mala fide intention and ulterior motives to pressurize the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that respondent No,2 who is complainant of the F.I.R. Filed an application to S.S.P. On 22-7-2000 wherein it has been alleged that the petitioner on gun point alongwith others had snatched the amount and from the F.I.R. It is crystal clear that the petitioner has not ,committed any offence: as the alleged stamp paper in the F.LR. Itself contradicts, the story of the F.I.R. And also the application submitted to the S.S.P. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that the initiation of proceedings in the F.I.R. Is with mala tide intention and ulterior motives and the proceedings on the basis of this F.I.R. Are abuse of process of law.
4. On the other hand learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant states that civil and criminal liabilities are independent and can go side by side.
5. Learned Assistant Advocate-General has also opposed this petition on the ground that both the remedies can be availed and can continue at the same time.
6. Learned counsel for the complainant has also argued that earlier similar type of cases were registered against the petitioner and he is a habitual person. The bail application in the said case has been dismissed. The conduct of the petitioner does not entitle him to any relief claimed by him.
He has not come with clean hands.
7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record. The civil suit was filed on 1-5-2000 in which the petitioner claims that the signature on the said stamp paper has been got obtained by force. The notices were issued to the complainant on 5-10-2000 whereas the notices were again issued on 10-10-2000 and after the receipt of the notices the attempt has been made to initiate the criminal proceedings in order to pressurize the petitioner/plaintiff of the civil suit, and restrain him from pursuing' the case. The contentions raised by the learned counsel' for the petitioner are supported, by the documents annexed with this petition. I have noticed that the bare perua1 of theF.I.R. Shows that the petitioner and the Complainant were doing some business and amount is due from the petitioner side. Prima facie it seems that the complainant has tried to convert the civil proceedings into criminal offence and has got registered this case, of course with mala tide intention and ulterior motives. Now, it is well-settled law that the criminal proceedings will be stayed till finalization of the civil suit. Hence, this writ petition is accepted and the criminal proceedings initied through F.I R 2001 registered on 21-5 Station Saddar, Mtiridke wider section 406, 'P.P.C. Are stayed till the final decision of the civil suit.