Paramjit Singh vs Tarlochan Singh

K.K. Srivastava, J.

This judgment of mine will dispose of two Criminal Miscellaneous Cases 11009M and 4952M of 1998.

Petitioners Paramjit Singh, Manpreet Singh, Nachhattar Singh and Gurmeet Singh, arrayed as accused besides 9 others seek the quashing of order dated 7.4.1998 (copy Annexure P4) vide which the prayer of the petitioners for staying the proceedings in the impugned complaint case registered at complaint dated 23.8.1997 filed by respondent No. 1 Tarlochan Singh against Darashan Singh Brar and others pending before the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jagraon, was dismissed.

The other Criminal Miscellaneous case bearing No. 4952M of 1998 has been filed by Ruldu Ram son of Shri Chuni Lal, Accountant of Manpreet Singh, Resident of Nihal Singh Wala, Tehsil Moga seeks the quashing of order dated 31.1.1998 passed by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jagraon in the aforesaid complaint case filed by respondent No. 1 (copy Annexure P5) vide which the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jagraon, ordered for summoning of the accused for offences punishable under Sections 347/348/365/465/467/468/471/506/148/149 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 120B IPC and S. 25 of Arms Act and summoned them for 9.3.1998.

Both the Criminal Miscellaneous cases arise out of the same complaint case filed by the respondentTarlochan Singh. The relevant facts have been extracted from the file of Criminal Miscellaneous No. 11009M of 1998 filed by Paramjit Singh and three others.

Prior to the filing of the complaint (copy annexure P1), the respondent No. 1Tarlochan Singh approached this Court by filing a Criminal Miscellaneous case No. 8824M/98 with the prayer for issuing direction to the police officials to register a case against the petitioners on the same allegations as have been made in the Criminal complaint (Annexure P1). The said petition was dismissed vide order dated 7.8.1997 with the observation that the powers of the High Court under Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, or under Article 226 of the Constitution need not be exercised in cases where alternative remedy is available to a person. It has been alleged that the respondentTarlochan Singh filed a civil suit on 1.3.1997 in the Court of the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jagraon, praying for possession of land measuring 5 Kanals11 Marlas and to set aside the Mutation Nos. 59985999 entered in the revenue records on the ground that the sale deeds dated 27.9.1995 were illegal, null and avoid, without consideration, gratuitous, got executed under undue influence and coercion. Copy of the plaint of the aforesaid civil suit has been placed on record as Annexure P2. Petitioners contended that a bare perusal of the complaint (Annexure P1) and the plaint of the civil suit (Annexure P2) would show that the same set of allegations have been made therein with the only difference of those persons who were likely to prove the due and valid execution of the two sale deeds dated 27.9.1995 by the complainantrespondent No. 1 in favour of the petitioners, have also been arrayed as accused in the complaint case so as to dissuade them to depose in favour of the petitioners in the civil suit (copy Annexure P1). The petitioners, it was urged, were summoned by the order dated 13.1.1998 passed by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jagraon, to face trial for the offences punishable under Sections 347/348/365/465/467/468/471/506/148/149 and S. 420 IPC read with Section 120B IPC and S. 25 of the Arms Act.

The petitioners challenged the order of summoning dated 13.1.1998 before this Court by filing a criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 5375M of 1998, which was disposed of on 10.3.1998 by this Court by the following order :

" Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. The petitioners seek quashing of the impugned complaint, copy Annexure P/5. One of the grounds for quashing is that the matter regarding the forgery of the documents concerned is the subject matter of the civil suit which is already pending between the parties and the finding of the civil court will be relevant in this context. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it appropriate to dispose of this petition by relegating the petitioners to their remedy of moving appropriate petition before the court of competent Magistrate seized with this case and seek the desired relief of the complaint being stayed and to await the decision of the civil case. It is made clear that if such an application is moved before the court of competent jurisdiction, the same will be heard and disposed of after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioners as well as to the respondents and the matter be disposed of by a reasoned order. The matter be disposed of expeditiously and preferably within one month from the date of moving the application. Disposed of accordingly."

The petitioners, accordingly, filed an application before the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jagraon, on 14.3.1998 and prayed for stay of proceedings in the criminal complaint (Annexure P1) vide copy of the application (Annexure P3). The learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jagraon, has, however, rejected the said application vide order dated 7.4.1998. Copy of the order has already been placed on record as annexure P4. The learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate rejected the application of the petitioners mainly on the grounds that there was no provision in the Criminal Procedure Code empowering the Magistrate to stay further proceedings; that all the persons arrayed as accused in the complaint have not moved the application for stay of proceedings and lastly, the persons arrayed as accused in the complaint have been summoned under various Sections regarding which the civil Court will not give any finding. The petitioners contended that it is not required by any provision of law that all the persons arrayed as accused in the complaint should jointly move an application for stay of further proceedings in the complaint. The petitioners approached the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate in pursuance of the order passed by this Court on 10.3.1998 and as such, the first two grounds of rejection of the application are not correct and are liable to be rejected. The third and the last ground on which the application of the petitioners has been dismissed is equally untenable and unsustainable as the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate gravely erred in not taking into consideration the real subject matter involved in the complaint and the civil suit. It was submitted that since the matter is already under a forensic examination of the civil Court and as such, the proceedings before the criminal Court on the same issue are liable to be stayed. In case the criminal proceedings are allowed to continue and the same are decided earlier to the decision rendered in the civil suit, then the finding of the criminal Court shall cause a great embarrassment to the parties to the civil Court. They further contended that it is not required that all issues in the civil suit as well as in the criminal case should necessarily be the same for staying further proceedings before the Criminal Court. The core issue it was alleged that regarding the legal and valid execution of the two sale deeds dated 27.9.1995 is common in both the proceedings, i.e., the civil suit and the criminal complaint and once the core issue is decided in favour of the petitioners in the civil suit which, admittedly, has been filed by the complainantrespondent No. 1 earlier to the filing of the complaint, then remaining issues involved in the complaint relating to the offences punishable under Sections 347/348 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and S. 25 of the Arms Act are bound to fall being devoid of any truth. As such, the finding of the civil Court shall have real and effective bearing upon the criminal complaint case. It has also been referred to by the petitioners that the findings of the civil Court will be binding on the criminal Courts.

The respondent No. 1complainant Tarlochan Singh filed his written statement contending inter alia that the petitioners Gurmeet Singh, Nachhattar Singh, both the sons of Nikka Singh, are the real brothers of main accused Darshan Singh Brar, exMinister. Manpreet Singh is soninlaw of Darshan Singh Brar, while Paramjit Singh is a friend and in relation of Darshan Singh Brar. The accused have criminally duped the complainant of his valuable property `Amar Cold Storage'' which is of more than one crore. Preliminary objection has been raised that the petitioners are not entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, because this Court has, vide order dated 10.3.1998 (Annexure R1), relegated the petitioners to their remedy of moving appropriate petition before the Court of competent Magistrate seized with the case and seek the desired relief of the complaint being stayed and to avail the decision of the civil case. The trial Court in compliance with the orders of this Court decided the matter on 7.4.1998 and passed a reasoned order. The learned Magistrate has exercised its discretion and there are no grounds made out by the petitioners for interference by this Court in exercise of powers under Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure. Reliance has been placed on a judgment of this Court in Jaswinder Pal Singh v. State of Punjab, 1997(4) RCR (Criminal) page 629, wherein the prayer for stay of criminal proceedings due to the pendency of the civil Court was declined. Respondent No. 1 further mentioned that the offence of forgery is not only the offence, which has been mentioned in the complaint case, but also there are other offences mentioned therein in which the petitioners have been summoned and thus are punishable under Sections 347/348/365/467/468/471/506/148/149 IPC read with Section 120B IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act. He contended that the offence of forgery may be common in the complaint and the civil suit, but the petitioners, according to the impugned complaint case, have committed other serious offences. The policy of the law is not a stay of criminal proceedings and a Court of competent jurisdiction. It will be appropriate to take up the Criminal Miscellaneous No. 4952M of 1998, vide which the petitionerRuldu Ram seeks the quashing of summoning order. The Grounds of quashing are :

(i) that no complaint was made to the police when the occurrence is alleged to have taken place and the initiation of the proceedings are an afterthought and being used as a tool to force the persons named in the complaint to put pressure for settling down the civil matters going on between the complainant and Darshan Singh and four others regarding the disputed property;

(ii) copy of the complaint made to the Chief Minister vide Annexure P1 clearly shows that the petitioner was not named in that complaint either to be present or to have committed any offence for which he is put to trial;

(iii) That even in the criminal case filed before this Court, the petitioner was nowhere named either to be present at the place of occurrence or having played any role in getting the forged documents executed in favour of Darshan Singh Brar and others or alleged to have committed any act helping the other accused in committing the offence;

(iv) Copy of the plaint of the civil suit does not aver a single word that the petitionerRuldu Ram had done anything which resulted into an offence committed for which he has been summoned;

(v) It is clear from the copies of the annexures added hereto with the petition that the complainant is trying to make out a strong case that Darshan Singh and others with whom the civil matters are going on in the Court of Additional Judge (Senior Division), Jagraon and he is naming every person who is either remotely or having any sort of link so as to put pressure and to make out a false case against them;

(vi) Copy of the statement recorded before the Court clearly indicates that none of the witnesses or the complainant himself have alleged even a single order during the course of deposition which makes out a case for summoning the petitioner to face trial;

(vii) The complainant has been unnecessarily implicated and summoned as an accused in the complaint case;

(viii) The settled view of law is that in the eventuality of there being civil as well as well as criminal cases going on separately, the proceedings in the criminal case be stayed till the disposal of the civil case as the orders passed in a civil case have bearing upon the criminal case;

(ix) The petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case and the learned Magistrate failed to take note of any fact which led to the commission of offence under various Sections for which the petitioner has been summoned to face the trial;

(x) The order of the trial Court is erroneous; and

(xi) Even otherwise also if the entire proceedings of the case along with the documents filed by both the parties are taken into consideration, the petitioner is not at all beneficiary which might have provoked him to commit the offence for which he has been named and the petitioner has been named for nothing having been committed by him.

Ground No. 8 is covered by the plea raised by the petitioners of Criminal Miscellaneous No. 11009M of 1998, who seek the staying of proceedings before the criminal Court due to the pendency of the civil case and this ground has to be considered while taking up the averments of the said criminal Miscellaneous case. It will be relevant to notice briefly the averments made in the impugned complaint case qua the petitionerRuldu Ram. The petitioner Ruldu Ram son of Shri Chuni Lal has been shown at Serial No. 8 in the impugned complaint. He has been described the Accountant of Manpreet Singh, resident of Nihal Singh Wala, Tehsil Moga. Manpreet Singh has been shown at Serial No. 4 amongst the respondentsaccused. In para 4 of the complaint, the following averments inter alia were made :

"That on 23.9.195 when the complainant was present in his house and were enjoying tea with his family members in the meanwhile, two Maruti Gypsys loaded with security guards stopped in front of the house and the security persons Mr. Darshan Singh Brar, Paramjit Singh got down from the Gypsy and criminally and forcibly trespassed into the house, while three other accused, Nachhatar Singh, Gurmeet Singh, brother of Mr. Brar and Manpreet Singh, soninlaw of Mr. Brar kept sitting in the Gypsy. The accused forcibly dragged the complainant to their Gypsy and took him to the residence of Hansa Singh, Sub registrarcumNaib Tehsildar. The complainant was taken on the first floor of the building, where Hansa Singh, was also present. The complainant was astonished to see that Man Mohan Katyal along with Raidu Ram were also present. The complainant was forcibly made to sit to the ground, while the security persons surrounded the complainant with their respective weapons....."

It will be appeared form the allegations made in the First Information Report that the petitionerRuldu Ram was very much present at the time when the alleged occurrence took place. He is the person employed with Shri Manpreet Singh, who is said to be the soninlaw of Shri Darshan Singh Brar and it cannot, therefore, be said that there was no material before the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jagraon, for summoning the petitioneraccused to stand the trial. A perusal of the impugned order of summoning will go to show that the allegations made in the complaint were dealt with in great detail. He after perusing and considering the allegations made in the impugned complaint and the preliminary evidence found a prima facie case for summoning the accused. The relevant part of the order of summoning is contained in para No. 4, which reads as under :

"From the documents on file at this stage it is clear that there exists a Amar Cold Store in the property in question which assessed to house tax as proved on record from the Municipal Committee and further loan proceedings are also pending from PFC authorities against Amar Cold Storage and as deposed by the complainant that sale deeds have been got executed from him forcibly and all the accused with their conspiracy forged the same by showing the premises in question to be vacant plot and further in the report of Amrit Lal Surveyor the property is shown as vacant plot which is submitted for sanctioning the loan in the name and style of M/s Guru Nanak Cold Storage. From the evidence on file and as discussed above there are sufficient grounds to summon the accused under Sections 347/348/365/465/467/468/471/506/148/149 and S. 420 IPC read with S. 25 Arms Act and S. 120B IPC. Let the accused be summoned for 9.3.98 on filing of PF and copies of the complaint."

The Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case Smt. Rashmi Kumar v. Mahesh Kumar Bhada, 1997(2) All India Criminal Law Reporter 967 held :

"..... It is fairly settled legal position that at the time of taking cognisance of the offence, the Court has to consider only the averments made in the complaint or in the chargesheet filed under Section 173, as the case may be. It was held in State of Bihar v. Rajendra Agarwalla, 1996(8) SCC 164 that it is not open for the Court to sift or appreciate the evidence and on consideration of the averments made in the complaint and the evidence thus adduced, it is required to find out whether an offence has been made out. On finding that such an offence has been made out and after taking cognizance thereof, process would be issued to the respondent to take further steps in the matters. If it is a chargesheet filed under Section 173 of the Code, the facts stated by the prosecution in the chargesheet, on the basis of the evidence collected during investigation, would disclose the offence for which cognisance would be taken by the Court to proceed further in the matter. Thus it is not the province of the Court at that stage to embark upon and sift the evidence to come to the conclusion whether offence has been made out or not. The learned Judge, therefore, was clearly in error in attempting to sift the evidence with reference to the averments made by the respondent in the counteraffidavit to find out whether or not offence punishable under Section 406, IPC had been made out."

In view of the settled position of law, this Court will not invoke its inherent powers under Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure and embark upon and sift the material to hold whether the petitioner committed the offence for which he has been summoned. Moreover, it may be pointed out that at the appropriate stage of the trial when the learned Magistrate proceeds to frame charges, the petitioner would be at liberty to raise appropriate pleas to show whether all the offences or some of them are prima facie not made out against him. Accordingly I do not find any merit in either of the grounds urged by the petitioner in support of his plea for quashing the order of summoning.

Now coming to the controversy regarding the stay of the criminal proceedings in the complaint case due to the pendency of the civil suit, it may be mentioned that the law regarding the stay of proceedings in a Criminal Court due to the pendency of the civil case is well settled. There cannot be a straitjacket formula for staying the proceedings before the Criminal Court where the civil suit relating to the matter of dispute is pending between the parties. The facts of each case are to be considered separately and in the peculiar facts of each case, the Court has to consider the desirability of stying the proceedings in the criminal Court because of the pendency of the civil suit. At the outset, it may be mentioned that the civil suit filed by Tarlochan Singh, vide copy Annexure P2, is against Darshan Singh Brar, Paramjit Singh, Man Preet Singh, Nachhattar Singh, Gumeet Singh and Oriental Bank of Commerce. PlaintiffTarlochan singh seeks the relief of possession of land measuring 5 Kanals11 Marlas and building constructed thereon, situated in Agwar Ladhai, Jagraon, the details of which are mentioned in the plaint. The allegations in the plaint have been made primarily against Shri Darshan Singh Brardefendant No. 1 and it has been averred in para 11 of the plaint about defendants 2(a) to 2(d) as under :

"..... The plaintiff learnt about the defendants who are the same persons who were present on 27.9.95 and defendant No. 2(a) to 2(d) are the partners in the so called the unit `Guru Nanak Cold Storage'' the name given by the defendants to `Amar Cold Store''. Harpal Singh was the assistant of Mr. Manmohan Katyal who is shown in the sale deeds dated 27.9.95 to be present on behalf of the alleged vendee. The defendant No. 1 deliberately introduced his nears and dears as partners and himself stayed away in view of his political status."

Two sale deeds dated 27.9.1995 have been impugned and the relief sought from the civil Court is contained in para 19 of the plaint as under :

"It is, therefore, prayed that a judgment and decree regarding restoring the possession of the land/building as fully explained/described in the head note of the plaint as well as in the detailed paras of the plaint may very kindly be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants after setting aside the two sale deeds dated 27.9.95 each along with Mutation No. 58985899 as the sale deeds are illegal, null and void, result of undue influence, pressure, dominance and the gratuitous on the basis of circumstances and facts described in detail. Any other additional or alternative relief for which the plaintiff may be found entitled may also kindly be granted in the context of special circumstances referred in the plaint, in the interest of natural justice to protect the right to property of the plaintiff."

In the complaint case, arraying of accused shows in all 13 accused persons including the present petitioners and the allegations made in the complaint showed commission of offence prima facie, besides forgery, under Sections 347/348/365/465/467/468/471/506, 148/149 read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 25 of Arms Act. The learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jagraon, while dealing with the application of the petitioners seeking the stay of proceedings due to the pendency of the civil case, which is the impugned order in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 11009M of 1998 (copy Annexure P4), dealt with the matter in para 5, which is reproduced as under :

"As per as factum regarding pendency of civil suit between the parties is concerned, it is the admitted case of the parties. A perusal of complaint and summoning order further shows that in the instant case complainant is not only against the present petitioners who have moved the application for staying of the proceedings rather there are other accused also who have summoned under various Sections which amount that all the accused are not interested in stay of proceedings. Since the present petition has been filed by few of the accused whereas the remaining accused have not moved any application. Moreover, in the present complaint, accused have been summoned under various sections, i.e., under sections 347/348/465/467/469/467120B IPC and the arguments raised by counsel for the petitioner are devoid of any force especially in the circumstances if sale deed is held to be valid then Sections 465/467/471 goes because the present petitioner have also been summoned under various sections which also includes the Section 25 of the Arms Act and no verdict can be given by the civil Court on these sections for which the accused/petitioners are ordered to be summoned. Hence arguments raised by the counsel for the petitioner that mere pendency of civil suit is sufficient to stay the proceedings of the present is devoid of any force. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner has also failed to refer any provisions of Cr.P.C., under which this Court can stay the proceedings. The case law referred by the learned counsel for the petitioner shows that it is only the Hon''ble High Court which is vested with the jurisdiction under Section 482, Cr.P.C. to stay the proceedings. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also not referred any case law vide which any Magistrate has power to stay the proceedings due to the reason that civil proceedings are pending between the same parties. Moreover, it has been held in Jaswinder Singh''s case (supra) by His Lordship Hon''ble Mr. Justice S.C. Malte that there is no straitjacket formula that criminal case be stayed when civil suit on the same matter is pending. Each case is to be considered on the facts. The guiding principle is that resultant consequences should not be the embarrassment to the accused in the criminal case. Held the progress of an investigation cannot be stalled simply because civil suit in respect of the same disputed documents was filed. In this regard the Hon''ble Mr. Justice S.C. Malte also relied upon A.I.R. 1954 Supreme Court 397 in which it has been held by the Hon''ble Apex Court that no ground to stay criminal proceedings was to be stayed... and further in case reported in (sic) 1995(4) Supreme Court 1994, it is held by the Hon''ble Apex Court that it has been observed that civil Court drags for years together and it is undesirable that criminal prosecution should wait till every body concerned have forgotten all about the crime. It is further observed that public interest demands that criminal justice should be swift and sure and the guilty should be punished when the events are still afresh in the public mind. It has also been held in various cases reported above by their Lordships that mere pendency of civil suit does not affect criminal proceedings, since in that instant case all the accused have not moved the application for stay of proceedings and moreover accused are not summoned only on the subject matter of the sale deed but they have also been summoned under other various Sections under which admittedly the civil Court in which civil suit is pending would not given any findings qua these sections. Moreover, the learned counsel for the petitioner has not referred even single provision in Cr.P.C. in which proceedings can be stayed by a Magistrate, hence this court is of the considered opinion that as held by our own Hon''ble High Court as well as by the Hon''ble Apex Court in the cases referred above, including the discussion above, that there is no merit in the present application and the same is hereby dismissed."

In the case of M.S. Sheriff v. The State of Madras and others, 1954 Supreme Court Reports 1144, the Apex Court held as under :

"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 an eventuality when it expressly refrains from making the decision of one court binding on the other, or even relevant, except for certain limited purposes, such as sentence or damages. The only relevant consideration here is the likelihood of embarrassment."

Their Lordships father observed :

"Another factor which weighs with us is that a civil suit even drags on for years and it is undesirable that a criminal prosecution should wait till everybody concerned has forgotten all about the crime. The public interests demand that criminal justice should be swift and sure : that the guilty should be punished while the events are still fresh in the public mind and that the innocent should be absolved as early as is consistent with a fair and impartial trial. Another reason is that it is undesirable to let things slide till memories have grown too dim to trust. This, however, is not a hard and fast rule. Special considerations obtaining in any particular case might make some other course more expedient and just......."

Another authority relied on by the respondent No. 1 is of a Division Bench case of this Court in Vijay Kumar v. State of Punjab, 1991(3) Recent Criminal Reports 420, which relate to a matter under Cooperative Societies Act. Considering the civil liability and criminal liability, the Division Bench observed as under :

" The point to note at the very outset is that the matter in issue already stands settled and decided by the judgment of the Division Bench in Criminal Revision 245 of 1979 (Laxmi Narain v. The State of Haryana) decided on March 25, 1981, where, precisely the same question arose for consideration, namely; "whether after the passing of an award against an accused by Arbitrator under the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act''), criminal proceedings could be initiated and continued against him for an act on his part which gave rise not only to civil liability, but also criminal liability." In dealing with this matter, the Bench observed :

" The Civil liability of an accused who misappropriates an individual''s property or the property of an institution like the Cooperative Society etc. is based upon the right of such individual or institution be reimbursed by such person to the extent of the misappropriated amount, while his criminal liability springs from the fact that the society at large is interested in seeing that the individuals constituting the society do not deviate from the right conduct and thus law envisages imposition of punishment, physical or otherwise, to deter such persons and others from doing so in future. It is for this reason that the State, which represents the society, takes upon itself the role of a prosecutor. Even when an individual upon whom the crime had been committed refrains from prosecuting the accused and even when he petitions that the accused should not be prosecuted, the State is not only not debarred from prosecuting the accused, but it is in law dutybound to initiate the criminal proceedings and punish the accused for the crime."

Another authority cited is of a Single Bench decision reported in Jaswinder Pal Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another, 1997(4) R.C.R. (Crl.) 629 wherein in paras 7 and 8, it was held :

"Para 7 : The counsel further submits that since the civil suit as well as the criminal case covers the same subject matter in respect of the genuineness or otherwise of the power of attorney which is said to have been executed by Sharanjit Kaur in favour of Amar Kaur, the proceedings of the Criminal Court should be stayed, till the decision of the civil suit. In support of that, the counsel for the petitioner cited rulings. The case of Nir Singh v. Puran Singh, 1988 CCC 533, is the decision by the Single Bench relying on the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in case of M.S. Sheriff and another v. State of Madras and others, AIR 1954 SC 397. The observation in that case indicates that there is no straitjacket formula that a criminal case is to be stayed when the same subject matter is covered by the civil case also. It is observed therein that each case is to be considered on the facts. The guiding principle is that the resultant consequence should not be an embarrassment to the accused in the criminal case. In another case Kuldip Kumar v. State of Punjab, 1995(9) CLR 253, the Single bench of this Court was of the view that the decision in the criminal case would depend on what the civil Court holds in respect of the disputed documents. In that case, the decision of the Supreme Court in case of M/s. M.S. Sheriff''s case (supra) has not been brought to the notice. However, in the subsequent case of Smt. Murti v. Hukam Chand, 1995(1) C.L.R. 531, the Single Bench of this Court quoted the observations in the decision of the Supreme Court in case of Pratibha Rani v. Suraj Kumar and another, 1985(1) C.L.R. 666, and concluded that the ratio of the decision was to see that the parties to the litigation are not put to embarrassment in their defence while contesting civil as well as criminal case. In the context of these rulings, it would be worthwhile to refer the observation of the Supreme Court in case of M.S. Sheriff and another v. State of Madras and others, AIR 1954 Supreme Court 397. These are as follows :

"As between the civil and the criminal proceedings the criminal matters should be given precedence. No hard and fast rule can be laid down but he possibility of conflicting decisions in the civil and criminal Courts is not a relevant consideration. The law envisages such an eventuality when it expressly refrains from making the decision of one court binding on the other or even relevant except for certain limited purposes, such as sentence or damages. The only relevant consideration is the likelihood of embarrassment. Another factor which weighs with the Court is that a civil suit often drags on for years and it is undesirable that a criminal prosecution should wait till everybody concerned has forgotten all about the crime. The public interests demand, that the guilty should be punished while the events are still fresh in the public mind and that the innocent should be absolved as early as is consistent with a fair and impartial trial."

"Para 8 : In view of these various rulings, it is now obvious that he only question before me is whether there is likelihood of some embarrassment to the parties to the litigation of civil and criminal proceedings go side by side. In the context of that, it may be noted that in the criminal cases, besides the defendant in the civil suit, other persons are also shown as accused on the allegations that they gave a false identification to a person who personated Smt. Sharanjit Kaur as executant of the forged power of attorney. In so far as these persons were not parties to the civil suit, there is no question of parallel litigation against them in civil as well as in criminal Courts. In so far as it pertains to defendant No. 1 in the civil suit, he had already taken the stand in the civil suit by filing the written statement. The other two defendants 2 and 3 are the persons who are parties to the sale deed executed on the basis of power of attorney which is said to be forged one. In the context of these aspects, it may be noted that in the course of investigation, the disputed signatures have been already subjected to the examination by handwriting expert who opined that the signatures were not by Smt. Sharanjit Kaur. In civil, as well as in criminal proceedings, the evidence will have to be led to establish the genuineness or otherwise of the disputed power of attorney. Therefore, there does not seem to be any escape from repetition of some part of the evidence in both these matters. It is obvious that the evidence led in one matter cannot be read and considered in another matter, except to the extent if confrontation of statements in the other proceedings, if these amounts to contradiction etc. Therefore, in my opinion, and in keeping with the observation given in the case of M.S. Sheriff''s (supra) both these proceedings may proceed. Therefore, there does not seem to be any reason for stalling the progress of the criminal case until the decision in the civil Courts. It may be well visualised that civil cases in the Courts take considerable time and are dragged upto the highest Court. Further, as observed by the Supreme Court in case of M.S. Sheriff (supra), the possibility of conflicting decision in the civil and criminal Courts is not the relevant consideration because the law envisages such eventuality when it expressly refrains from making the decision of the Court binding on the other or even relevant except for certain limited purposes. In the context of this observation, one may well take into consideration the provisions of Sections 40 to 44 of the Evidence Act which makes provisions regarding the relevancy of the judgments of the Courts of justice. Briefly stated, the previous judgments of the Court are found to be relevant facts to the limited extent to establish issue regarding the res judicata (Section 40), in case of legal character entitling certain persons to a specific right or aspect (Section 41) matter of public nature relevant to the enquiry (Section 42). Section 43 of the Evidence Act further clarifies that the extent to which previous judgments would be relevant unless the existence of such judgment, order or, decree is a fact issue, or is relevant under some other provision of Evidence Act."

In another authority Dhan Raj v. State of Punjab and others, 1996(3) Recent Criminal Cases 509, the learned Single Judge of this Court held in para 15 as under :

"It may be stated that there can be no rigid or straitjacket formula fixing the standard for staying the proceedings in the criminal case while civil proceedings are pending between the parties. The real consideration would, thus be likelihood of embarrassment to a party. I have considered the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner but the same have no application to the facts and circumstances of the present case. Moreover, when the prosecution case has proceeded upto a considerable stage, there would be no justification to stay the further proceedings therein, since it is not known as to by what time the civil suits would be decided finally between the parties."

In Court on its own Motion v. Smt. Kailash Rani, 1993 Crl. L.J. 2109, the learned Single Judge of this Court considered the question of staying the criminal proceedings in view of the pendency of the civil case and held in para 8 as under :

" It is thus clear that mere pendency of civil proceedings cannot ipso facto block criminal proceedings concerning the same cause of action nor can it be taken to be the intention of law that if criminal proceedings are pending all that an accused has to do is to file a civil suit on the same cause of action, no matter how weak or tenuous his claim may be, and criminal proceedings have necessarily to be stayed thereafter to await the result of the civil suit. To adopt such a course, may, in fact, defeat the ends of justice keeping in view the long delays that usually occur in the disposal of the civil suits thereby enabling a guilty culprit to be at large with impunity for years and in the meanwhile intervening factors like witnesses suffering loss of memory after such a long time or not being available and the like coming in, to provide and escape route to such an accused in the criminal proceedings."

After carefully considering the matter, I am of the considered opinion that no exception can be taken to the impugned order passed by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jagraon and I do not find any infirmity in law in the same. It will not the just, proper and appropriate to order for the stay of the criminal proceedings merely because the civil suit is pending against some of the accused persons.

In view of the foregoing discussion, there is no merit in both the Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions, which are dismissed.

Petitions dismissed.