Keshwa Nand vs Bhag Singh

Harmohinder Kaur Sandhu, J.

Keshwa Nand, a proprietor of M/s. Rahul Steel and Agro Industries, Jalalpur, has filed the present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the complaint Annexure P1, summoning order Annexure P2 and all subsequent proceedings based on the complaint, including the orders Annexures P3 and P4 pending before the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Amloh.

The brief facts of the case necessary for disposal of the present petition are that Bhag Singh respondent is partner of M/s. Paneshar Steel and Agro Industries, Alipur, Tehsil Khanna while his sons Ravinder Singh and Gurdeep Singh are the partners of M/s. Inder Singh and Sons, Amloh. Both the firms had business dealings with the firm M/s. Rahul Steel and Agro Industries, Jalalpur. A suit was brought by M/s. Inder Singh and Sons for recovery of Rs. 1,16,351.15 against Keshwa Nand. In his written statement to that suit, Keshwa Nand alleged that there were no sale transactions between the parties to the suit and that there was only a billing arrangement with M/s. Inder Singh and Sons as well as with M/s. Paneshar Steel and Agro Industries. Keshwa Nand also filed a suit against M/s. Panesar Steel and Agro Industries and M/s. Inder Singh and Sons for recovery of Rs. 2,36,000/ on the basis of bill No. 3 dated April 12, 1986 and bill No. 4 dated April 14, 1986. Bhag Singh respondent alleged that both these bills were pieces of patent forgery and clear evidence of fabrication of record and false evidence, for the purposes of producing in a court of law and for being used in the judicial proceedings, knowing and having reason to believe that the documents to be produced in Court were fabrications and forgeries. On these allegations, Bhag Singh filed a complaint against the present petitioner on May 13, 1987, for offences under Sections 465, 467 and 193 of the Indian Penal Code.

Preliminary evidence was recorded and on consideration of the same, the petitioner was summoned to face trial for the above mentioned offences. During pendency of the proceedings, the petitioner moved an application for staying the proceedings on the plea that he had filed a civil suit on the basis of same bills, which was pending in the Court. The matter in issue in the civil suit as well as in the criminal complaint was the same. Continuation of criminal proceedings till the decision of the civil suit amounted to an abuse of process of law and was also to cause embarrassment to him. This application was opposed by Bhag Singh respondent and after hearing counsel for the parties, the same was declined by the trial Court vide order copy of which was Annexure P3. The petitioner then, filed the revision petition, assailing the order of the trial Court dated July 26, 1989, declining to stay the proceedings in the complaint. The revision petition was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala, as per order Annexure P4 dated October 1, 1991.

The petitioner alleged that in the civil litigation that was pending between the parties, a joint application was moved desiring to appoint Shri Pawan Kumar Sharda as an Arbitrator and the parties agreed to be bound by the decision given by him. Shri Pawan Kumar Sharda was accordingly appointed as Arbitrator but he submitted his report without perusing the record. The report favoured the respondent, against which objections were filed, but the same were dismissed by the trial Court. The petitioner had to approach this Court by filing five separate revision petitions. It was further pleaded that pendency of the complaint was nothing but an abuse of the process of the Court. The complaint was simply filed with a view to put pressure on the petitioner so that he may admit the illegal claim of the respondent. Had the respondent been convinced that the bills were forged, he would not have agreed to the appointment of an Arbitrator. In the return filed by the respondent, the allegations made in this petition were denied.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner did not address any arguments on the question of quashing of complaint and summoning order. He simply confined himself to the relief of stay of proceedings in the complaint till the disposal of the civil suits pending between the parties. It was contended that when civil litigation is pending regarding the same documents then it is desirable that the proceedings in the criminal case may be stayed till the civil court gives findings on the question relating to the genuineness of the two bills, whereupon the petitioner has founded his claim for recovery of the amount. It was further contended that even the trial Court in its order Annexure P3 observed that the decision of the civil case would be binding upon the complainant. Still the proceedings in the criminal case were not stayed, though it was observed that final order will not be announced till the decision of the civil case. It was, thus, stressed that continuation of criminal proceedings will cause unnecessary harassment to the petitioner. I find that this contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is quite tenable. Admittedly when a suit for recovery of some amount is filed by the respondent against the petitioner, to recover certain amount from the respondent, the petitioner instituted the suit on the basis of two bills. According to the respondent, those bills are forged. The civil court is seized of the matter regarding genuineness of the bills. If the bills are found to be genuine, then the very basis of the complaint would be knocked out. The continuation of the proceedings in the criminal complaint will, therefore, cause unnecessary harassment and expense to the petitioner. In Mela Ram v. Hawa Singh, 1991(2) Chandigarh Criminal Cases 473, a criminal complaint was filed for offences under Sections 468, 471 and 120, Indian Penal Code, alleging that the complainant/petitioner got transferred some plot in favour of his son by forging signatures and thumb impressions of the partners. His suit for rendition of accounts was also pending with respect to the same plot. It was observed that since the matter in dispute was under scrutiny and the findings of the civil court were binding on the criminal court, it was appropriate to stay the proceedings.

In the present case, this fact is not denied that a prima facie case was made out against the petitioner and he was rightly summoned. But as the matter regarding genuineness of the bills in question is in issue in the civil proceedings between the parties and is under scrutiny of the civil court, it will be just and proper to stay further proceedings in the complaint filed by Bhag Singh respondent against the petitioner. I, therefore, partly accept this petition and stay the proceedings in the complaint Annexure P1, pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Amloh, till the disposal of the civil suit based on the bills in question pending between the parties.