Ram Sarup vs Jog Dhian

K.S. Kumaran, J.

Jog Dhian, respondent in this petition, lodged a complaint under Sections 464, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 506 I.P.C. against the petitioners herein and others before the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jagadhri. He had alleged therein that his maternal grandfather Ram Rakha owned certain properties and died leaving behind his daughterKareshani Devi who was his (complainant''s) mother. According to the respondent, Kareshani Devi inherited all the properties left by Ram Rakha and she also died on 14.9.1989 leaving behind himself and the other legal heirs. The complainant further alleged that Ist petitionerRam Sarup got executed a sale deed dated 8.10.1987 in respect of the some properties standing in the name of Ram Rakha, but Ram Rakha had not executed the sale deed, nor received any consideration. According to the complainant, this sale deed has been fabricated with the help of the document writer and the attesting witnesses. The complainant has also mentioned that on coming to know of the fraud, he and his brothers have filed a civil suit before the Civil Court, Jagadhri in respect of the said properties.

The complainant has also alleged that the 2nd petitionerTej Pal and others have fabricated a will dated 26.9.1977 alleged to have been executed by Ram Rakha and are claiming ownership to certain properties. According to the complainant, Ram Rakha did not execute the will dated 26.9.1977. The complainant has further alleged that Ram Rakha did not suffer any decree dated 19.9.1984 but on the basis of the judgment and decree, the 2nd petitionerTej Pal and others have got the mutation entered in their favour. According to the complainant, Ram Rakha never appeared in the case titled Shiv Kumar v. Ram Rakha before the SubJudge, Jagadhri, nor filed a vakalatnama or written statement, nor made any statement before the Court. Therefore, according to the complainant, the judgment and decree dated 19.9.1984 has been obtained fraudulently by showing some other person to be Ram Rakha. According to the complainant, based upon this judgment and decree, the second petitionerTej Pal and others claim ownership in the properties. The complainant claims that he and others have filed the suit titled Jagmohan v. Shiv Kumar and others before the Additional Civil Judge, Jagadhri in respect of these properties. According to the complainant both the suits are fixed for evidence of the plaintiffs.

The complainant has also stated that the disputed thumb impression and the thumb impression of Ram Rakha in a register of the Registrar''s office have been compared and it has been found that the disputed thumb impression are not that of Ram Rakha.

On the basis of this complaint, the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jagadhri, after taking into consideration the materials placed before him, summoned the accused to face trial under Sections 465, 467, 468 and 471 I.P.C.

Two of the accused namely Ram Sarup and Tej Pal filed this petition for quashing the complaint annexure P1 and the summoning order annexure P2 or in the alternative, to stay further proceedings in the criminal proceedings till the disposal of the civil suits (annexures P3 and P5).

At the time of issuing notice, learned counsel for the petitioners did not press the grounds for quashing the complaint or the summoning order and stated that he was confining this petition only with regard to the relief of stay of the criminal proceedings till the disposal of the civil suits. Accordingly, notice regarding the registered prayer was given to the respondent. The respondent has entered appearance through counsel and opposes the grant of stay as prayed for.

I have heard counsel for both the sides and perused the records.

Learned counsel for the petitioners relying upon the decision in R.C. Goenka v. Som Nath Jain, 1996(2) RCR 205 contended that the criminal proceedings have to be stayed in view of the two civil suits. Of course, it is seen from the copy of plaints, annexures P3 and P5, that the complainant himself has filed two civil suits. Civil Suit 579 dated 7.10.1991 has been filed by the complainant and others against Shiv Kumar and others (annexure P3) wherein the complainant and others have sought for a declaration that they are the owners of the properties in dispute, that the decree dated 19.9.1994 in Civil Suit No. 706 dated 1.9.1984 titled Shiv Kumar and others v. Ram Rakha is null and void and not binding upon them. The complainant and others have filed the Civil Suit 72/CS/91/98 on 8.11.1991 against Ram Sarup and others for a declaration that they are the owners of the properties in dispute, that the sale deed dated 8.10.1987 allegedly executed by Ram Rakha in favour of the defendant and the mutation are null, void and inoperative. Therefore, it is seen that the very same dispute involved in the criminal proceedings is also involved in the two civil suits. Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioners prays that the criminal proceedings be stayed till the disposal of the civil suits.

But the learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, contends that there is no need to stay the criminal proceedings in view of the pendency of the civil suits. He contends that the civil suits and the criminal proceedings can be ordered to be tried and disposed of by the same Court having jurisdiction over these matters. In this connection, he relied upon a decision of this Court in Mohinder Singh Randhawa v. Harbhajan Singh, 1998(2) RCR 464 which certainly supports the contention of the respondents. Therefore, I am of the view that instead of staying the criminal proceedings till the disposal of the civil suits, it will be in the interest of justice and also in the interest of both sides that the two civil suits and the criminal proceedings can be tried separately but simultaneously by the same Judge having jurisdiction over these matters, and also disposed of at the same time, of course, by separate judgments. This will certainly prevent the criminal proceedings from being kept pending for a long time till the disposal of the civil suits.

Therefore, I direct that the Civil Suit 579 dated 7.10.1991 titled Jog Dhian and others v. Shiv Kumar and others pending before the Senior Sub Judge, Jagadhri (now Civil Judge, Senior Division) and Civil Suit 72/CS/91/98 dated 8.11.1991 pending before the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Jagadhri titled as Jog Dhian and others v. Ram Sarup and others and also the criminal complaint titled Jog Dhian v. Ram Sarup and others pending before the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jagadhri be transferred to one and the same Judge who is competent to try these civil suits as well as the criminal complaint. The concerned Judicial Officer to whose Court these Civil suits and criminal complaint are transferred, should try each of them separately, but sumultaneously and also pass order simultaneously, but by different judgments so that these matters can be disposed of at the same time. The Registry will send a copy of this order to the concerned District Judge, Ambala, who will pass appropriate and necessary orders for withdrawing/transferring these proceedings to one and the same Judge who is competent to try and dispose of both the civil suits and the criminal complaint.

The petition is ordered accordingly.