Rajinder Singh vs State of Punjab and Sukhjinder Kaur

Viney Mittal, J.—The present petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner for quashing of the FIR No. 218 dated November 6, 1997 registered under Sections 406, 498-A, 420 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station Focal Point, Ludhiana. A copy of the FIR has been appended as Annexure P-1 with the petition.

It is averred in the petition that a Civil suit between the petitioner and respondent No. 2 Sukhjinder Kaur is already pending. A copy of the plaint in the aforesaid civil suit has been appended as Annexure P-2 with the petition.

I have heard Shri Sunil Chadha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Shri A.S. Kalra, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 and Shri Sandeep Jain, learned Assistant Advocate General, Punjab and with their assistance have also gone through the record of the case.

In my view, no grounds are made out for exercising the inherent powers of this Court u/s 482 Cr.P.C. and staying the criminal proceedings arising out of the FIR. The only submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner is that during the pendency of the civil suit, which is still pending between the parties, the criminal proceedings cannot be allowed to continue.

Shri Sandeep Jain, learned Assistant Advocate General, Punjab has submitted that simply because a civil suit is pending between the parties, is no ground to quash the criminal proceedings. In this regard, Shri Jain has relied upon 2000(2) R C R 122 (Medohi Chemicals & Pharma Pvt. Ltd. v. Biological E. Ltd.) and M. Krishnan Vs. Vijay Singh and Another, decided by the Hon''ble Apex Court.

It has been held by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgments that merely because a civil suit is pending is no ground for quashing or staying of the criminal proceedings, which can continue side by side.

In this view of the matter, I do not find any force in the petition and the same is hereby dismissed. However, the personal presence of the petitioner shall remain exempted during the pendency of the criminal proceedings before the learned trial Magistrate. However, the learned trial Court is at liberty to secure the personal presence of the petitioner as and when the same is required by it in accordance with law.

The petitioner would also be well within his rights to move the appropriate Court for praying that the aforesaid civil suit and the criminal proceedings be decided by the same Court and on the same day.

According the present petition is dismissed with above observations.