LAHORE, July 12: A full bench of the Supreme Court has held that proceedings in a criminal case can not be stopped merely on the ground that civil litigation is also in progress in the same matter. The judgment was delivered by the apex court’s full bench, comprising Justice Javed Iqbal, Justice Shakirullah Jan and Justice Naseerul Mulk at Lahore in granting leave to appeal to Mohammad Siddique of Rasoolpur, Pattoki tehsil, who had submitted that the Lahore High Court had, through a decision on May 5, 2002, stayed the criminal proceedings in an FIR on the plea that the matter was already under civil litigation.

The appellant submitted that the FIR was registered by the Lower Mall police, Lahore, on the charges of preparation of a bogus general power of attorney to fraudulently occupying 58 kanals, belonging to four women in Rahim Yar Khan. The sub-registrar of Sadar division, Lahore, got the FIR registered on the complaint of the appellant alleging that Mohammad Iqbal got a bogus general power of attorney prepared for the allotment of the land in the name of Pervez Iqbal of Alipur, Chunian tehsil.

The landmark judgment, which set aside the LHC decision of a status quo till the decision of a civil suit, becomes a legal precedent not to prevent criminal proceedings in the cases of fraud, particularly relating to preparation of bogus documents in property cases, even though a civil litigation is in progress in the same dispute. The judgment ordains that criminal and civil proceedings in such cases could go side by side.

Moved through Arif Chaudhry, the appellant flayed the LHC decision which issued the stay order under section 561-A of the Criminal Procedure Code on the submission that the criminal proceedings in the case should follow the outcome of a civil case in the property dispute.

The counsel cited 1986 SCMR 303 and PLD 1992 LHR 178 to submit that superior courts had already held that the mere civil litigation could not prevent criminal proceedings in cases of property dispute. He questioned the LHC stay order in a criminal miscellaneous when a writ petition in the same dispute was pending in the high court.

He submitted that the accused persons could not be permitted to perpetuate fraud and depriving four women of their right on property merely because they had gone into frivolous litigation. He stated that the LHC had erred in issuing a stay order because it negated several superior court decisions.