Legal Advice on Staying of Proceedings in a Criminal Complaint Case

The Interplay of Civil and Criminal Proceedings: A Review of Judicial Perspectives

Introduction:

In the realm of legal proceedings, the interaction between civil and criminal cases can lead to intricate situations where courts must weigh the impact of one upon the other. Over the years, numerous cases have shed light on the principles guiding the stay of criminal proceedings when a related civil matter is pending. In this blog, we explore the essence of some pivotal cases that have shaped this aspect of jurisprudence.

1. PLD 2003 Karachi 393. Jamil A. Durrani V/S The State (DB) The court held that while there is no universal rule mandating the stay of criminal proceedings due to a pending civil case, a second bail application must be justified by fresh grounds. The decision highlighted the importance of considering subsequent developments and happenings when dealing with successive bail applications.
2. 1998 PCrLJ 1646 Hamid Abbas V/S SHO Police Station Chehl Yak, Multan (Lahore) This case emphasized that parallel criminal proceedings cannot be initiated when a subject matter is already pending before a civil court. The court upheld the right of the police to continue their investigation, but criminal proceedings remained stayed until the civil court reached a verdict.
3. 1999 MLD 3169. Mst. Khadija Khatoon V/S The State & another (Lahore) In this instance, the court ordered a stay of criminal proceedings because the issue of a marriage contract was pending before a family court. The judgment highlighted the inherent danger of conflicting judgments when two courts deliberate on the same issue simultaneously.
4. PLD 2001 Lahore 157. Chairman National Accountability Bureau V/S Mian Muhammad Abbas Sharif The court refused to stay proceedings in another province where the accused was stationed, as the matter fell under the trial court’s purview. It reiterated that in the absence of any injunctive order, the trial court should continue its proceedings.
5. NLR 2002 CrLJ 198. Munir Ahmad V/S Province of Punjab (Lahore) This case established that there is no universal principle to stay criminal proceedings solely because a related civil matter is pending. Courts must assess each case individually to decide on the stay of proceedings.
6. NLR 2002 CrLJ 399. Jehanzaib Shinwari etc. V/S The State (Peshawar) The court stayed criminal proceedings until the decision of a civil suit, as the dispute was purely of a civil nature. It aimed to avoid complications that could arise from parallel proceedings.
7. 2002 PCrLJ 513. Nuhammad Bashir & Fazal Hussain & 2 Others (Lahore) In this case, the court accepted the petition and stayed criminal proceedings until the final disposal of a related civil suit. The court considered it an abuse of process to proceed with the criminal case when the same matter was sub judice before the civil court.
8. PLD 2002 Peshawar 87 The court stayed criminal proceedings pending before the Special Judge, as the matter was purely civil in nature. The stay aimed to protect the rights of the parties and ensure justice.
9. NLR 2003 SD 667. Mst. Nasreen Akhtar V/S Hasnain Mehdi & others (FSC.DB) The court ordered the stay of proceedings in a complaint related to Hudood offenses until the fate of a Hudood complaint for Zina was decided. This approach aimed to avoid potential conflicts in judgments.
10. 2004 MLD 1502. Mushtaq Ahmad V/S SHO & others (Lahore) The court upheld the stay of proceedings in a criminal case when the same matter was pending before a civil court. It emphasized that quashing the FIR was not advisable in such circumstances.

Conclusion:

These cases collectively reflect the varied judicial perspectives on the stay of criminal proceedings during the pendency of related civil matters. The essence lies in considering the unique circumstances of each case, weighing the potential for conflicting judgments, and ensuring justice is served. The interplay between civil and criminal cases necessitates a delicate balance that respects the rights of all parties involved. As the legal landscape continues to evolve, these cases will remain pivotal in guiding future decisions on this intricate aspect of the law.

Cases discussed above:

1. PLD 2003 Karachi 393. Jamil A. Durrani V/S The State (DB) S.9, 18(g) & 24(b) NAB Ord. S.497 & 369 CrPC. Second bail application. The accused’s previous bail application was rejected by the High Court on merits, and he filed a second bail application based on fresh grounds and subsequent developments in the case. Although S.369 CrPC was not applicable to the bail application, there must be some justification for a second or successive bail application. In this case, certain happenings and developments took place after the rejection of the accused’s previous bail application. The trial court had stayed proceedings against the principal accused, against which the State had filed a revision before the High Court, pending a decision. Additionally, one of the co-accused was still absconding, and another co-accused was on interim pre-arrest bail with proceedings stayed. There were allegations of a pick and choose policy adopted by the NAB authorities in not including certain accused members of the Cantonment Board. The accused had been in jail for over nineteen months, and the trial was not expected to conclude soon. It was emphasized that bail should not be withheld as punishment, and nobody should be kept in jail indefinitely. BAIL GRANTED.
2. 1998 PCrLJ 1646 Hamid Abbas V/S SHO Police Station Chehl Yak, Multan (Lahore). S.420/468/471/109 PPC. The criminal court could not initiate parallel proceedings if civil proceedings on the same subject matter were pending in a civil court. If a civil suit regarding the matter in dispute was pending, quashing of the FIR could not be ordered, and the police had the right to continue with the investigation and submit a report U/S 173 CrPC. Criminal proceedings would remain stayed until the verdict against the accused was given by the civil court.
3. 1999 MLD 3169. Mst. Khadija Khatoon V/S The State & another (Lahore). S.561-A & 439 CrPC. S.16 Zina. Stay of proceedings. Proceedings pending before the criminal court against the petitioner/accused under S.16 were stayed because a suit for jactitation of marriage was filed by the petitioner/accused against the son of the complainant, who was alleged to be the husband of the petitioner/accused. The suit was pending before the Family court, where evidence had already been partly recorded. The issue of whether the petitioner/accused had contracted marriage with the alleged husband was sub judice before the Family Court. The High Court ordered a stay of proceedings to avoid conflicting judgments.
4. PLD 2001 Lahore 157. Chairman National Accountability Bureau V/S Mian Muhammad Abbas Sharif. S.526 CrPC. Transfer application. Stay of proceedings. The accused person’s absence was cited as a reason for staying the proceedings. The defense contended that if the accused person was stationed in another province, the proceedings of the transfer application in that province might be stayed. The High Court refused to stay the proceedings in the absence of any injunctive order.
5. NLR 2002 CrLJ 198. Munir Ahmad V/S Province of Punjab (Lahore). S.440/147/148 PPC. The court stated that there is no universal principle that proceedings in a criminal case must necessarily be stayed when a similar matter is pending before a civil court.
6. NLR 2002 CrLJ 399. Jehanzaib Shinwari etc. V/S The State (Peshawar). S.419/420/467/468/161/162 R/W S.5(2) Prevention of Corruption Act. Criminal proceedings were initiated during the pendency of a civil suit involving the same facts and allegations. The High Court ordered a stay of criminal proceedings till the decision of the civil suit to avoid complications and conflicting judgments.
7. 2002 PCrLJ 513. Nuhammad Bashir & Fazal Hussain & 2 Others (Lahore). S.439-A, 439(5) 417(2) S.561-A CrPC. S.420/465/467/468/471/109 PPC. It was held that where the same matter was sub judice before the Civil Courts, criminal proceedings would remain stayed till the decision of the civil court. The petition was accepted.
8. PLD 2002 Peshawar 87. S.419/420/467/468/161/162 PPC. S.5(2) Prevention of Corruption Act 1947. The accused respondent had allegedly transferred some property through mutations in favor of the petitioners, which was the subject matter of a civil suit filed for declaration, perpetual injunction, and cancellation of the said mutations. The matter was purely of a civil nature, and if criminal proceedings were allowed to proceed, it would create complications. Criminal proceedings were stayed until the decision of the civil suit to protect the parties’ guaranteed rights.
9. NLR 2003 SD 667. Mst. Nasreen Akhtar V/S Hasnain Mehdi & others (FSC.DB). S.10(3) Zina Ord. Hudood complaint relating to Qazf and Hudood complaint for the offense of Zina. The Federal Shariat Court ordered that proceedings in Hudood complaint for the offense of Qazf would remain stayed until the fate of the Hudood complaint regarding Zina was decided by the trial court.
10. 2004 MLD 1502. Mushtaq Ahmad V/S SHO & others (Lahore). S.471/468/420 PPC. The court held that when the same matter was sub judice before the Civil Courts, criminal proceedings would remain stayed until the decision of the civil court, and quashing of the FIR was not advisable.
11. 2005 MLD 1301. Raja Moaz Hussain V/S Muhammad Khurshid & 3 Others (SC.AJK). S.427/435/436 PPC. The court ruled that civil and criminal cases could proceed side by side. There was no bar on initiating criminal proceedings in the presence of a civil suit. Proceedings relating to the act of dispossession pending before the trial court could proceed despite other proceedings pending in different forums.
12. 2005 SCMR 1599. Sheraz Ahmad & Others V/S Fayyazuddin & Others (SC.DB) S.249-A. The High Court found the acquittal of the accused under S.249-A was not proper on the ground that a civil suit pertaining to the same transaction was pending. The Supreme Court modified the judgment of the High Court to the extent that pending disposal of the civil dispute, the proceedings in the criminal case shall remain stayed.
13. 2006 MLD 491. Haji Muhammad Ashiq V/S The State (Lahore) S.420/468/471 PPC. The court held that no law could mandate a Criminal Court to stay criminal proceedings until the decision of the civil suit relating to the same subject matter. Civil and criminal cases had to be decided on their own merits, and evidence recorded in one case could not be used in the other. Judgment in the civil case would not be binding in the criminal case. It was a matter of pure discretion whether the proceedings in a criminal case should be stayed pending civil litigation. The petition was dismissed.
14. 2008 PCrLJ 1709. Muhammad Yaqoob V/S Superintendent Central Jail (Lahore) S.374, 376 & 381 CrPC. Art. 4, 45, 48 & 199 of Constitution. S.302 PPC. The court rejected the application to postpone the execution of the death sentence. The President of Pakistan had the power to commute death sentences under Art.45 of the Constitution but had not accepted the summary sent by the Prime Minister for commutation. No law or presidential order allowed the execution of death sentences to be stayed by the High Court. The court could not pre-empt the decision of the Supreme Court in the suo motu matter.
15. 2009 PCrLJ 864. Haji Taj Din & another V/S Sh. Mujib Ullah & another (Lahore) The court stated that civil and criminal cases could proceed side by side, and there was no bar on initiating criminal proceedings in the presence of a civil suit. Proceedings relating to the act of dispossession pending before the trial court were separate and could proceed despite other proceedings pending in different forums.

In summary, the principle of staying criminal proceedings when a similar matter is pending in a civil court is not an absolute one. Each case is decided based on its individual circumstances, and the court exercises its discretion to determine whether to stay the proceedings or allow them to proceed side by side. The court considers factors like the nature of the case, the subject matter, the potential for conflicting judgments, and the impact of one case on the other before making its decision.

Title: [Case Title]

Case No.: Crl.Misc. Application No. [Deleted]

Court: Hon’ble Judicial Magistrate/Civil Judge, Islamabad

Parties: [Applicant] vs. [Respondent]

Subject: Private Complaint Under Section 420/468/471 PPC

Application for Staying of Proceedings in Complaint Case

Facts: This case involves a private complaint filed under Section 420/468/471 of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) by the applicant against the respondent. The background of the dispute traces back to the respondent being a tenant of the applicant at Islamabad, who had borrowed significant sums of money for investment projects that eventually failed. Upon demand for repayment, the respondent issued twelve cheques to settle the debt, all of which were dishonored. Consequently, the applicant filed a civil suit, which was decreed in their favor, and appeals against the same were dismissed by the Islamabad High Court. Another suit based on five dishonored cheques was also decreed in favor of the applicant, and the respondent’s appeal against it is pending in the Islamabad High Court.

In retaliation, the respondent filed an application with the local police for the registration of an FIR, alleging forgery on the part of the applicant concerning one of the subject cheques. However, this application was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge, Islamabad. Subsequently, the respondent filed a similar application before the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, seeking an FIR’s registration, which was withdrawn to pursue a private complaint.

Timeline:

1. [Deleted]: The private complaint was filed before the District Judge, Islamabad, after the institution of a civil suit titled [Deleted].
2. [Deleted]: Preliminary hearing of the complaint adjourned sine die by the court without issuing process for summoning the applicant.
3. [Deleted]: The applicant’s suit under Order 37 CPC was dismissed by the learned District Judge, Islamabad, and the applicant preferred an appeal before the Islamabad High Court, which is pending.
4. [Deleted]: An application for summoning the complaint file was filed by the respondent-complainant.
5. [Deleted]: The court observed that a prima facie case under Section 420/467/471 PPC was made out, and non-bailable warrants were issued for the applicant’s attendance.
6. [Deleted]: The applicant was arrested as per the non-bailable warrants issued by the court.

Legal Grounds for Stay of Proceedings: The applicant seeks a stay of the criminal proceedings citing the possibility of conflicting judgments between the civil and criminal courts, as both cases involve the genuineness and title of documents. The court had previously adjourned the preliminary hearing of the complaint sine die due to the pendency of the civil suit, indicating that the issue was best resolved through the civil proceedings. The applicant argues that staying the criminal proceedings until the conclusion of the civil litigation aligns with the correct rule established by higher courts in Pakistan. They cite precedents, such as [Cases Cited], in support of this principle.

Prayer: The applicant, through counsel, respectfully requests the court to stay the instant criminal proceedings until the conclusion of the civil litigation between the parties, ensuring a fair and just resolution of the dispute.

Conclusion: This case involves a dispute between the applicant and respondent over the dishonoring of cheques and the genuineness of documents. The applicant seeks a stay of the criminal proceedings pending the resolution of the civil litigation, which is essential to avoid conflicting judgments and promote fairness in the matter. The court’s decision to grant or deny the application for the stay of proceedings will significantly impact the progress and outcome of the case.

[Note: This case note is based on the information provided in the original document and does not include real names, numbers, or dates to maintain confidentiality.]

Have Questions? Get in Touch at [email protected]