Kahla Singh vs State of Punjab and ors.

Pritpal Singh, J.

Pritam Kaur, respondent No. 2, filed a civil suit on January 9, 1985, against the petitioner Kahla Singh for possession of land in dispute measuring 14 Kanals 14 Marlas situated in village Raisar, Tehsil Barnala. In the written statement filed by the petitioner in those proceedings he alleged that the plaintiff Pritam Kaur had sold the land in dispute to him on the basis of a sale deed dated January 7, 1985. Thereupon Pritam Kaur brought another civil suit on February 4, 1985, against the petitioner for the declaration that the alleged sale deed is forged and fictitious. Subsequently, on March 1, 1985, Pritam Kaur lodged a first information report with the police under sections 416, 420, 468, 470, 471 and 120B, Indian Penal Code, against the petitioner and three others regarding the same matter. After completion of investigation a challan was presented in the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Barnala. In those criminal proceedings the petitioner and the coaccused have been summoned.

The petitioner filed an application dated September 23, 1985 before the Judicial Magistrate for stay of criminal proceedings till the civil Court decision regarding the genuineness or otherwise of the disputed sale deed. This application was dismissed by the Judicial Magistrate on December 21, 1985 (Annexure P1). A revision petition carried by the petitioner to the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Barnala, was also dismissed on January 29, 1986 (Annexure P2).

In these proceedings under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner has not sought the quashing of the orders Annexures P1 and P2 and staying of the criminal proceedings pending the civil litigation.

Admittedly the subject matter of the suit and the criminal case is the same inasmuch as in both the proceedings it has to be ascertained whether the impugned sale deed is genuine or fictitious and forged. The learned respondent''s counsel cited M.S. Sheriff and another v. State of madras and others, AIR 1954 S.C. 397, in support of the contention that the criminal proceedings should not be stayed and if at all found necessary the civil case may be stayed. It was observed by the supreme Court in this case :

"As between the civil and the criminal proceedings we are of the opinion that the criminal matters should be given precedence. There is some difference of opinion in the High Courts of India on this point. No hard and fast rule can be laid down but we do not consider that the possibility of conflicting decisions in the Civil and criminal Courts is a relevant consideration. The law envisages such eventuality when it expressly refrains from making the decisions of one court binding on the other, or even relevant except for certain limited purposes, such as sentence or damages. The only relevant considerations here is the likelihood of embarrassment."

It becomes clear from these observations that the only relevant consideration here is the likelihood of embarrassment. In my opinion the subject matter of the suit and the criminal case being the same, it would be expedient to stay the criminal proceedings to save the embarrassment to the petitioner. The civil Court will finally give its verdict on the genuineness or otherwise of the disputed sale deed. In case the criminal proceedings are not stayed and the petitioner is convicted and sentenced and thereafter the civil Court comes to the conclusion that the sale deed was genuine, the obvious result will be the miscarriage of justice. In somewhat similar circumstances in Phaggu Ram and others v. The State of Punjab, 1975 PLR 57, this Court stayed the criminal proceedings till the disposal of the civil suit. I am in agreement with this view.

For aforesaid reasons the present petition is allowed and it is directed that the criminal proceedings pending against the petitioner in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Barnala, be stayed till the disposal of the civil suit filed by Pritam Kaur respondent on February 4, 1985, wherein it has to be decided whether the impugned sale deed is genuine or otherwise.