' Through this petition, petitioners seek setting aside of the impugned order dated 18-4-2001 passed by respondent No,1 and order, dated 23-5-2001 passed by respondent No,2 in revisional jurisdiction and also for declaring the same as illegal, arbitrary and without lawful authority. They have prayed that they may be acquitted in the case by quashing the F.1.R.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent No,4 got registered a criminal case F.I.R. No, 396 of 1999, dated 5-11-1999, under sections 379/427/148/149, P.P.C. With Police Station Ichhra, Lahore, against the petitioners, alleging therein that during the night of 23/24 October, 1999, the complainant received an information on telephone from Amir, who reached the place of occurrence and saw that the petitioners alongwith some unknown persons (who could be identified if brought before him), forcibly showing arms, had stolen the gate and broken the walls and gate. Further alleged that the complainant immediately informed the police whereupon 5/6 constables arrived there and stopped the accused persons from breaking the walls.
3. The complainant further alleged that when he went to the police station for lodging the report, in the meanwhile the gate was removed from the spot. Upon this complaint the abovesaid case was registered. After the investigation the police submitted the challan. The petitioners were also arrested, who were released on bail.
4. During the pendency of the abovesaid case, the petitioners filed an application under section 249-A, Cr.P.C. For their acquittal but the learned Magistrate dismissed the same vide order, dated 18-4-2001 against, which revision has also been dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore, vide order, dated 23-5-2001.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the petitioners being law-abiding citizens and having no previous criminal history and earning their livelihood by reasonable profession cannot even think about the commission of the alleged occurrence. He further contends that there was no eye-witness of the occurrence. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the F.I.R. Is false, fabricated and based on vague allegations. He further contends that no offence is made out from F.I.R. Learned counsel for the petitioners further contends that a civil suit titled as Mst. Mussarrat Shaheen v. Muhammad Azeem etc. Was filed on 27-10-1999 by Mst. Mussarrat Shaheen, which is pending before the Court of competent jurisdiction, in which the same question of fact and law had been agitated before the learned Civil Judge. He further contends that a Local Commission was appointed in the said suit by the learned Civil Judge who visited the spot oil 28-10-1999 and recorded the statements of Muhammad Zafar, complainant and other witnesses. The Local Commission submitted his report, dated 28-10-1999, before the learned Civil Judge. He contends that the matter is of civil nature and competent Court has already taken cognizance of the same.
The registration of the case is abuse of process of law. He further contends that the respondent No,4 has also filed a suit which is also pending in the Court of competent jurisdiction.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners further contends that the respondent No,4 has constructed an illegal commercial plaza in the name of Al-KhaifCenter on the residential piece of land and a show-cause notice was served upon him by Metropolitan Corporation on 18-12-1999 for demolishing the plaza. The respondent No,4 filed a Writ Petition No,3602 of 1999 before this Court which was dismissed in limine vide order, dated 3-3-1999. Thereafter the respondent No,4 filed an Inta-Court Appeal No,194 of 1999 against the said order.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that actually Sheikh Noor Elahi entered into an agreement on 17-6-1999 and wanted to sell out the common land adjacent to the wall of the petitioners. The case has been registered in order to pressurize the petitioners not to pursue the case in the Civil Court and to restrain them from taking legal objection against respondent No,4, and the petitioners are entitled to be acquitted in this case.
8. Learned counsel for the respondent No,4 has opposed this writ petition. He further contends that the application under section 249-A, Cr.P.C. Has been rightly dismissed by the Judicial Magistrate as it was filed at premature stage. He also contended that the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, dated 23-5-2001 is also lawful order and there is no reason to set aside these orders. According to the learned counsel for respondent No,4 civil litigation and criminal litigation can go side by side. He further contends that the acquittal of the petitioners will definitely prejudice the case of respondent No,4.
9. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record. Admittedly the dispute has arisen between the petitioners and respondent No,4 and Mst. Mussarrat Shaheen regarding the same property which is admittedly in possession of the petitioners and Mst.
Mussarrat Shaheen. Respondent No,4 has constructed commercial plaza over the said property while the petitioners and Mst. Mussarrat Shaheen are using the same for residential purposes. The allegations levelled against the petitioners arc that they had stolen the gate. Admittedly no body claimed to have seen the occurrence while making statements before the Local Commission.
Respondent No,4 in his statement before the Local Commission has admitted that he had not seen the occurrence. He has however, stated in his statement that the petitioners are responsible for stealing of the gate. Suit was admittedly filed by Mst. Mussarrat Shaheen on 27-10-1999 regarding the same property and about the same issues and the Local Commission was also appointed which has given its report after recording the statements of all the concerned parties and respondent No,4 has also filed a civil suit against the petitioners which are pending adjudication before the Court of competent jurisdiction.
10. The complainant made a statement before the Local Commission that he had not seen the occurrence and when he reached the place of occurrence, the gate had already been removed by the petitioners. Hence, admittedly for the time being there is no evidence as to who had seen the occurrence. Local Commission visited the spot before 28th October, 1999 and recorded the statement of all the concerned parties and it came to the notice of respondent No,4 and the petitioners that a civil suit had been filed by Mst. Mussrrat Shaheen. The respondent No,4 seems to have got registered the case in order to pressurize the petitioners and to restraining them from pursuing the case before the Civil Court and even after the thorough investigation. The prosecution failed to bring any witness from the locality or from the neighbour who had seen commission of the offence. Statement of respondent No,4 is also contradictory and his mere statement in the absence of any other evidence on record, in the circumstances of the case will not be sufficient to continue the proceedings against the petitioners on the criminal side for the time being.
11. The learned counsel for the State has conceded that the prosecution has no direct evidence regarding involvement of the petitioners in this case. I have also noticed that the pendency of the criminal case will not be in the interest of justice, and all the parties concerned shall have to be provided equal opportunity to pursue their cases before the Civil Courts. Hence, the proceedings in the Criminal Court in the above title case till decision of the Civil Courts shall remain stayed and if after the decision of the Civil Courts it becomes necessary then proceedings shall be again started against the petitioners.
12. This writ petition is accepted and the proceedings before the trial Court till the decision of the civil suits are stayed.