Sunday, 25 October 2015

Scope of FIR during Civil Litigation

PLJ 2001 Lahore 1133
Present: ijaz ahmad chaudharyJ.
MUHAMMAD ABBAS-Petitioner
versus
STATION HOUSE OFFICER POLICE STATION SADDAR MUBIDKE DISTT. SHEIKHUPURA and another-Respondents
W.P. No. 14383 of 2001, decided on 16.8.2001.
Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (XLV of 1898)--
—-S.  561-A-Constitution of Pakistan  (1973),  Art.  199-Quashment of F.I.R.~Criminal case u/S. 406 PPG was registered ainst
during pendency of Civil suit relating to same subject matter-Recordindicates that after receipt of notices of civil suit attempt has been made to initiate criminal proceedings in order to pressurize petitioner (Plaintiff) of Civil suit-Contentions raised by petitioner were supported by documents annexed with Constitutional petition-Bare perusal of F.I.R. would show that petitioner and complainant were doing some business and specified amount is due from petitioner-Prime facie omplainant has tried to convert civil proceedings into criminal offence and has got registered criminal case with mala fide intention and ulterior motives-Criminal proceedings have to be stayed till finalization of civil suit-Criminal proceeding initiated through F.I.R. in question, were thus, stayed till the final decision of civil suit.                                                           [P. 1135] A
Ch. Sadaqat Ali, Advocate for Petitioner.
Mr. Waseem Mqjid MalikAdvocate for Respondent No. 2,
Mr. Zahid Farani Sheikh, A.A.G.
Date of hearing: 16.8.2001.
ORDER
Through this Constitutional petitioner, the petitioner seeks quashment of FIR No. 123/2001 registered on 21.5.2001 at Police Station Saddar Muridke on the statement of Muhammad Younas u/S. 406 PPC.
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/- isoutstandingagainst 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 FIR 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 were issued to the complainant for 5.10.2000. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that after the receipt of the riotices and after coming to know about the pendency of the civil suit filed by the petitioner, this FIR has been got lodged with mala fide intention andulterior motives to pressurize the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that Respondent No. 2 who is complainant of the FIR filed an application to SSP on 22.7.2000 wherein it has been alleged that the petitioner on gun point alongwith others had snatched the amount and from the FIR it is crystal clear that the petitioner has not committed anyoffence as the alleged stamp paper in the FIR itself contradicts, the story of the FIR and also the application submitted to the SSP. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that the initiation of proceedings in the FIR is with mala fide intention and ulterior motives and the proceedings on the basis of this FIR 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 cango 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 cntentions raised by the learned counsel for thepetitioner are supported by the documents annexed with this petition. I have noticed that the bare perusal of the FIR shows that the petitioner and complainant were doing some business  and  amount is  due from the petitioner side. Prime 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 fide 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 initiated through FIR No. 123/2001 registered on 21.5.2001 at Police Station Sardar Muridke u/S. 406 PCC are stayed till the final decision of the civilsuit.
i A.A)                                                                                 Petition accepted

No comments:

Post a Comment

Contact International Lawyer

If you have any queries related with this post you can contact at internationallawyerinfo@gmail.com

Regards,
Salman Yousaf Khan
Chairperson
International Lawyer
+92-333-5339880