' This is an application under section 561-A, Cr. P. C. For quashment of the proceedings of a criminal case sent up by the police for offence under section 431, P. P. C. Against the applicant.
2. The facts in brief are that ground floor premises in question had been rented out under a lease agreement to one Syed Aijaz Hussain by Syed Ali Zamin Jaffery. Afterwards Syed Muhammad Sajjad Abidi came into possession of the said shop claiming under Syed Aijaz Hussain. The original agreement between the parties mentioned the ground floor area 54'x 48', with double roof or "dochhatti" 12' x 30. The ground floor and dochhatti were used as furniture show room. It was the case of the first informant that the passage for entry into the dochhatti was locked up by Anwar Ali son of Shahzad Ali who stayed on the first floor. The Police after due investigation sent up the case for offence under section 341 against Anwar Ali and Shahzad Ali. After the case had proceeded and one witness was actually examined this application for quashment was moved.
3. It has been argued by Mr. S. M. Afzal on behalf of petitioner Shahzad Ali that what had been let out for the shop was ground floor only and the term 'double roof' appearing in the lease agreement had been erroneously used for the word 'strong roof'. This appears to be absurd as even the dimensions of the roof at the ground floor and the first floor have been mentioned in the lease agreement. It is usual that for providing space for storage of merchandise a portion of the shop is covered at low level to provide dochhatti as part of the shop.
4. It appears that Syed Muhammad Sajjad Abidi had filed a suit against Shahzad Ali and Anwar Ali concerning this dispute and the Court had ordered that pending the suit the plaintiffs should be allowed access to the dochhatti. Even this direction does not appear to have been complied with, with the result that contempt proceedings were being taken for disobedience of the Court's order.
5. The mere fact that civil proceedings are already pending between the parties would not be a ground for quashment of the criminal case if theA facts also disclose the commission of a criminal offence. There is, therefore hardly any ground for interference by way of quashment of the proceedings! Of this pending criminal case. The petition is accordingly dismissed.