Soofi MUHAMMAD ANWAR. vs Mst. BADSHAH BEGUM and 6 others

' SH. RIAZ AHMED, J.---This appeal through leave of this Court is directed against the judgment and order dated 22-2-1992 delivered by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court whereby the criminal proceedings instituted by the appellant against the respondents were quashed.

2. The brief facts of the case are that on the basis of F.I.R. Lodged by the appellant on 29-4-1986, a case under sections 452, 506, 448, 511, 148 and 149, P.P.C. Was registered and the respondents were sent up to face trial on the said charges. During the pendency of the criminal proceedings, the respondents moved an application under section 249-A, Cr.P.C., which was dismissed. The respondents then invoked the inherent jurisdiction of the Lahore High Court by way of moving an application under section 561-A, Cr.P.C., which was allowed by a learned Single Judge and the criminal proceedings were quashed.

3. The background of the litigation is that the appellant was alottee of the disputed quarter.

Allegedly he agreed to sell it to Mst. Badshah Begum respondent No,1 and had delivered the possession thereof to the respondent, who claimed to be in continuous possession thereof and was living in the said quarter with her family members. On 27-4-1996 the respondent then instituted a suit for declaration and injunction as a consequential relief against the appellant and one Muhammad Hanif and an interim injunction was granted on 28-4-1986. On 7-5-1986 the appellant also instituted a civil suit against the respondent and on 28-6-1986 the learned Civil Judge seized of both the cases considered the question of grant of interim injunction. On the said day interim injunction granted in favour of the respondent was confirmed on the ground that she was in possession of the quarter since long while the appellant was not in possession. On account of this finding, which was tentative in nature, the learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court was of the view that the criminal proceedings were mala fide and were designed to harass the respondent and therefore the learned Single Judge proceeded to quash the criminal proceedings.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and we are of the view that it was premature on the part of the learned Single Judge to have arrived at the finding arrived at by the Civil Court while dealing with an application for interim injunction. The suit was yet to be decided finally and therefore by stifling the prosecution the learned Judge proceeded in haste to pass the order impugned. In such-like cases, the law as laid down by this Court from time to time is that proceedings in the Criminal Court should be stayed till the decision of the Civil Court. Such legal position ought not to have been departed ' from. Accordingly, we allow this .Appeal and set aside the order impugned and we direct that the criminal proceedings launched at the instance of the appellant shall remain intact, but are stayed till decision of the Civil Court. The parties are left to bear their own costs.