NASEEM ZAFAR Versus LAHORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

This petition under section 561‑A of Zafar Ahmad, petitioner has arisen in the following circumstances.

2. On 8‑12‑1980, Abdul Hakeem, respondent, instituted a criminal complaint under sections 379, 403, 419 and 420 of the P.P.C. against Zafar Ahmad, petitioner. It was alleged that the complainant was the exclusive owner of Pakistan Multiple Industries, A.D. Tanneries Road, Kot Lakhpat, Lahore; that the petitioner was a tenant of the complainant in a residential portion of the upper storey of the factory; that at, the petitioner did not pay the rent, their relations were strained; that the complainant supplied Aluminium Ingots to the Ministry of Defence and submitted a bill against which cheque No.556020 dated 4‑9‑1980 was issued in the name of the complainant that the petitioner with a mala fide intention by committing resonation and thereby dishonestly deceiving the postman by cheating received the abovementioned cheque and that after receiving the amount of Rs.33,000 through the bunk, the petitioner dishonestly misappropriate and concerts to his own use the entire amount.

3. The petitioner's case on the other hand i s that he was a partner in the firm Pakistan Multiple Industries and if he had received the sum of Rs.33,000 in that capacity, he had committed no offence.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner does not press the prayer for the quashment of the proceedings. Relying upon Muhammad Akbar v. The State and Maulvi Muhammad Yasin Khan P L D 1968 SC 281 he, however argues that the proceedings in the criminal complaint should be stayed till the decision of the civil litigation between the parties. In that connection, he has shown me a judgment of the learned Civil Judge, Lahore, dated 7‑4‑1986, to point out that the petition had instituted a civil suit for rendition of accounts against the complainant partner of Pakistan Multiple Industries that in that suit the question whether the petitioner was or was not 3 partner of the firm was raised and decided in the petitioner's favour and that an appeal against that judgment and decree of the learned Civil Court is pending. The judgment does show that the petitioner had founded his claim for the rendition of accounts upon his being a partner in firm Pakistan Multiple Industries; that the complainant had claimed that he was the exclusive owner of the firm and that the question that the petitioner was a partner in the firm was decided in the petitioner's favour. In Muhammad Akhtar's case, the accused person was alleged to have committed the theft of a motor‑bus. The accuse, however, claimed to be a partner of the firm, in whose name, the motor bus stood registered and a civil suit for the dissolution of partnership and rendition of accounts was pending. It was observed that until the ownership of the motor‑bus was decided, it cannot be said that it had been wrongfully taken away from the possession of Mulla Abdul Karim. Now this question of ownership of the vehicle is itself sub judice. Its fate will depend upon the final decree in the suit for the dissolution of partnership. If it is awarded to Mulla Abdul Karim then and only then will his ownership be established and, therefore, that was a case in which the subject‑matter of the dispute in the criminal litigation was dependent upon the decision in the civil litigation. It was held that where it is clear that the criminal liability is dependent upon the result of the Civil Litigation or is so intimately connected with it and there is a danger of grave injustice being done in the case if there be a conflict of decision between the Civil Court and the Criminal Court has not only the right to but should also stay its hands until the Civil Litigation is disposed of, for, it is not desirable that when the title to the property itself is in dispute, the Criminal Courts should give a finding in respect of the same question. Here, too the real dispute between the parties concerns the ownership of the cheque No.556020 and the question is whether the petitioner had received it in his capacity of the partner of the firm. That question was sub judice in the Civil Court and was decided in the petitioner's favour and is now sub judice in the District Court is not disputed. An appeal being a continuation of the suit, the facts of this are, in my view, plainly within the principle of law laid down in the precedent case. I would, therefore, direct that the criminal proceeding in the complaint case shall remain stayed till the decision of the civil suit pending between the parties. The petition is disposed of accordingly.

S.A./Z‑84/L Proceedings stayed.