Murti vs Hukam Chand

V.S. Aggarwal, J.

Smt. Murti (hereinafter described as the petitioner) filed a complaint against Hukam Chand (hereinafter described as the respondent) with respect to offences punishable under Sections 417, 420, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. It was assured that she was the owner of the land situated in the revenue estate of village Chandla Dungarwas and had sold the said land in the year 1989 in the month of October to one Jag Mal Singh.

The respondent is alleged to have filed a suit for declaration to the effect that in a family settlement, petitioner has relinquished her interest in the suit land in favour of the respondent. A written statement was filed in that suit by some third person other than the petitioner who admitted the claim of the respondent. The suit as such was decreed on the basis of the admission made in the written statement by that third person.

Petitioner''s claim in the complaint made was that some other person was produced in the Court. No family settlement had been arrived at and that the respondent has committed offences mentioned above. It is not out of place to mention that petitioner has even filed a suit for declaration to the effect that the alleged decree obtained by the respondent is illegal invalid and voidabinitio and has been obtained as a result of fraud and cheating.

After preliminary evidence was recorded, respondents were summoned to face trial for the offences punishable under Sections 417, 420, 468 and 472 of the Indian Penal Code. Respondent appeared and filed an application, dated 11.3.1993 praying that proceedings in the criminal complaint may be stayed because civil suit involving the same dispute is pending. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate dismissed the application on 24.4.1992. Respondent preferred a revision petition which was allowed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon on 29.4.1993. The criminal proceedings pending in the complaint filed by the petitioner was directed to be stayed till the decision of the suit filed by her.

Aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon, the present revision petition has been filed.

The short question that came up for consideration is that as to if the proceedings initiated as a result of the complaint filed by the petitioner should be stayed in view of the civil suit filed by the petitioner involving the same dispute.

Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court on the case of Pratibha Rani v. Suraj Kumar and another, 1985(1) Chandigarh Law Reporter 666. The Supreme Court had returned the following findings :

"There are a large number of cases where criminal law and civil law can run side by side. The two remedies are not mutually exclusive but clearly coextensive and essentially differ in their content and consequence. The object of the criminal law is to punish an offender who commits an offence against a person, property or the State for which the accused, on proof of the offence, is deprived of his liberty and in some cases even his life. This does not, however, effect the civil remedies at all for suing the wrong doer in cases like arson, accidents, etc. It is an anathema to suppose that when a civil remedy is available, a criminal prosecution is completely barred. The two types of actions are quite different in content, scope and import. It is not at all intelligible to us to take the stand that if the husband dishonestly misappropriates the istridhan property of his wife, though kept in custody, that would bar prosecution under Section 406 IPC or render the ingredients of Section 405 I.P.C. nugatory or abortive."

The true import to these observations as is apparent from perusal of the relevant portion quoted above is that even if the husband had kept the istridhan and there was a remedy provided, there is no bar for prosecution and Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code would be attracted. It is in this background that the Supreme Court concluded the two remedies namely in the Civil Court and under the Criminal law can run side by side. The Supreme Court was not concerned with the question as to if the proceedings as a result of the civil complaint having been filed are to be stayed merely because civil suit was pending.

The learned counsel for the respondent on the contrary referred to the Supreme Court decision in the case of M/s. Karam Chand Ganga Pershad and another v. Union of India and others, A.I.R. 1971 S.C. 1244. In this cited judgment, the movements of maize had been controlled by the provisions of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 read with Northern InterZonal Maize (Movement Control) JUDGMENT 1967. The restrictions on export imposed by that order were removed by the State of Haryana in October, 1967. The Chief Minister, Haryana had made an announcement on 11.10.1967. Relying on these announcements, certain parties exported maize, in Haryana to West Bengal. The railway authorities refused to deliver the same to the consignees on the ground that export in question was illegal. The maize was forfeited and persons responsible for the export were prosecuted. Writ Petitions were filed at Delhi and the High Court held that in view of the pendency of the criminal proceedings at West Bengal, it is not proper for the High Court to pronounce on the question arising for decision in the writ petitions. The Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the High Court and held that :

"It is a well established principle of law that the decisions of the civil courts are binding on the criminal courts. The converse is not true."

The statement of fact given above clearly shows that the question which we are presently concerned in this revision petition was not the dispute before the Supreme Court.

However, the respondent''s learned Counsel that in any event urged that the present case is identical to the case of Kahla Singh v. State of Punjab, 1986(2) RCR 564 (P&H). In the cited case, respondent had brought a civil suit for declaration that the alleged sale deed is forged and fictitious and even had lodged a First Information Report regarding the same matter. Challan has been filed against the accused. It was held that :

"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." (Emphasis added).

These observations clearly show that the proceedings in the case instituted by the State (Criminal case) were stayed because it was held that decision therein before the civil suit might cause embarrassment. The ratio of this pronouncement is avoiding the embarrassment. It is not that each and every case where civil and criminal cases are pending having same common question involved, proceedings in criminal case should be stayed. Each case has its own facts. Stay of proceedings has to be done in a reasonable manner because civil cases generally take long time for its decision and if after the same is decided, evidence in the facts of a particular case will still have to be recorded in the criminal case. Consequently, the scales have to be kept even.

By virtue of this litigation, the proceedings in the criminal complaint filed by the petitioner have remained stayed for a considerable period. It is fit and proper, therefore, that the directions should be issued so that the civil suit filed by the petitioner is decided expeditiously. It is directed that the civil suit between the parties which is pending at Gurgaon will be disposed of by the learned Subordinate Judge preferably within six months of the intimation of this order so that the criminal case which has been stayed, does not lie in cold storage for years to come. Subject to this modification in the facts, there is no ground to interfere in the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon. JUDGMENT be conveyed to the Subordinate Judge at Gurgaon. Revision petition is disposed accordingly.