Crl. R No. 229 of 2002 (O&M) ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. R No. 229 of 2002 (O&M) Date of decision : January 17, 2011 Hardev Singh, ...... Petitioner v. Paramjit Kaur and another, ...... Respondents *** CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** Present : Mr. Sudhir Pruthi, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Sonal Datta, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr. Shilesh Gupta, DAG Punjab for respondent No.2. *** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? *** AJAY TEWARI, J (Oral) This petition has been filed against the order dated 12.10.2001 staying proceedings in the criminal trial. The dispute relates to power of attorney executed by the petitioner in favour of the accused/respondent No.1, on the basis of which respondent No.1 sold the property. What weighed with the learned revisional Court was the fact that civil suits were pending between the parties. Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a judgment of the Crl. R No. 229 of 2002 (O&M) ::2:: Hon'ble Supreme Court in M.Krishnan v. Vijay Singh, 2001(4) RCR (Criminal) 405 and a judgment of this Court in State of Punjab v. Hira Singh, 2002(1) RCR (Criminal) 617. As regards M.Krishnan's case (supra), the same arose out of a case where criminal proceedings were quashed. Consequently, the said case is distinguishable because in the present case proceedings have not been quashed but merely stayed. In State of Punjab v. Hira Singh's case (supra), no exact offence has been mentioned the trial of which was stayed. Consequently, the said judgment also does not apply to the present case. Since this petition is of the year 2002, I asked counsel for the petitioner regarding the fate of the said civil suits. He has fairly stated that while some civil suits have been decided in favour of the complainant and while some in favour of respondent No.1 also and that Regular Second Appeals are pending before this Court against all the said judgments. In this view of the matter, no fault can be found with the impugned order staying proceedings since now atleast there are some judgments of civil Courts affirming the power of attorney allegedly executed in favour of respondent No.1. Consequently, finding no merit in this petition, the same is dismissed with no order as to costs. ( AJAY TEWARI ) January 17, 2011. JUDGE `kk'