ABDUL HAYEE vs THE STATE And Another
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a Lahore High Court order refusing to quash criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner under Sections 379 and 468 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner sought to stay criminal proceedings on the basis that a parallel civil suit regarding ownership of the disputed property (a truck) was pending, arguing that the criminal court should stay its hands when the core issues overlap. The High Court, while noting the criminal and civil matters were not identical, directed that the criminal trial proceed but ordered the criminal court to withhold judgment until the civil suit was decided. The Supreme Court reviewed the High Court's refusal to quash the proceedings. The holding affirms that where civil and criminal proceedings coexist, the criminal court may continue its trial, provided that the final judgment is deferred until the civil court resolves the underlying dispute, thereby preventing conflicting outcomes while ensuring the criminal process is not prematurely terminated.
- Should criminal proceedings be quashed merely because a civil suit regarding the same property is pending?
- Is a criminal court required to stay its proceedings when a civil suit involving the same subject matter is ongoing?
- Can a criminal court proceed with a trial while deferring the announcement of judgment pending the outcome of a civil suit?
- Section 379, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 468, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
1. SALAHUDDIN AHMED, J.-This leave petition is from the order of a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court refusing to quash the criminal proceedings pending against the petitioner under sections 379 and 468 of the Pakistan Penal Code.
2. It appears that long after the institution of the criminal case the petitioner along with another person filed a declaratory suit in the civil Court at Lyallpur, claiming that they be declared as the owners of the disputed truck. In the criminal case the allegations were that the petitioner had sold the truck to respondent No. 2 on the 19th November 1968, for a sum of Rs. 35,000 and Rs. 9,000 were paid by way of first installment. Thereafter the petitioner had forcibly taken away the truck from respondent and in consequence the First Information Report was lodged with Ferozewala Police Station on the 25th April 1970.
3. It was contended before the High Court on the basis of the case of Mohammad Akbar v. The State (PLD1968SC281) that where both the criminal and civil litigations are pending between the parties the criminal Court should stay its hands if the question to be decided before the two Courts is precisely the same. The learned Judge ca a consideration of the document found that it was an out and out sale. However, the Court observed that this should not be taken to be the final opinion in the matter in view of the fact that the matter was still pending before the criminal Court. The learned Judge also found that the matter pending before the criminal Court was definitely not the same as that pending before the civil Court at Lyallpur. The learned Judge accordingly directed that the criminal proceedings should continue but the judgment in the case should not be announced until the decision of the civil suit. The learned Judge further directed the Senior Civil Judge, Lyallpur before whom the civil suit was pending to expedite the hearing of the case and decided it as expeditiously as possible and that long adjournments should not be given.
Cited by 3 cases
- Dr. Shahzad Nasim vs The State & Others 2023 SHC 297
- NAZIR AHMAD vs SALAHUDDIN AHMAD AND OTHERS 1983 CLC 3093
- MUHAMMAD SHAFI vs THE STATE AND Another 1981 SCMR 237(2)