Ravinder Kumar and others vs The State of Punjab

M.M. Punchhi, J.—An order of the trial Magistrate dated 2nd April, 1981, by which the petitioner were ordered to be charged for offences under sections 148/448/506 read with section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, is the subject matter of challenge in this petition for revision, at the instance of the accused petitioners.

The Learned Counsel for the petitioners has pointed out from the judgment of the Civil Court rendered between a few of the accused petitioners as the plaintiff and a few of the complainants as the defendants, by virtue of which the plaintiffs were granted a decree for permanent injunction against the defendants restraining them from interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs over the suit property forcibly and without due course of law. This decision was made on August 31 1979. The instant case against the petitioners was instituted before the trial Magistrate and the said judgment was pressed into service in defence at the time of the framing of the charge. In addition, thereto, revenue records in favour of the petitioner were pressed into service. The learned trial Magistrate vide his impugned order rejected the plea of the defence and proceeded to frame the charge against the accused petitioners being of the view that the documents produced by the defence could only be used as pieces of evidence in support of the defence version He also commented on the usefulness of the revenue records at that stage.

Mr. Ashwani Chopra, Learned Counsel for the petitioners has contented that the judgment of the Civil Court was final and conclusive between the parties and that on that score the judgment of the trial Magistrate had to abide by the decision of the Civil Court in all events, and to hold that trial in the face of the Civil Court judgment would, according to the Learned Counsel, be an exercise in futility and wastage of public time and expenses. The elaborate details and reasoning of the Civil, Court judgment have been employed to carry forward the point....Despite the vehemence in the arguments and the seeming force, I regret my inability to subscribe to the view.

I hold that when a party has been able to satisfy a Civil Court as to the justice of his claim and has in the same succeeded in obtaining a decree which is final and binding upon the parties, it would not be open to the Criminal Court to go beyond the findings of the Civil Court, has to place the latter without any valid reasons in a much higher place than it actually occupies in the system of administration and to make it a master not only of cases which it is called upon to adjudicate, but also of cases which it is not called upon to determine and over which it has really no control. There seems no reason why the decision of the Civil Court, particularly in an action in personum, and a suit for permanent injunction being one of such category, should be allowed to have a greater sanctity than the expected findings of a Criminal Court. The judgment of the Civil Court as also of the revenue documents would have to be weighed in proper light at the relevant time, but cumulatively they cannot at the stage of charge scuttle the proceedings. There thus seems to be no ground to interfere in the matter of the framing of the charges at this stage.

Resultantly, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. The parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the trial Court on the date already fixed.