Santokh Dass vs State of Punjab

S.C. Malte, J.

The petitioner seeks the quashing of the complaint on the ground that the subject matter involved in the matter is already before the High Court by way of second appeal. The matter pertains to two wills executed by Jasbir Kaur, since deceased. First will is dated 22.5.1989. The second will is dated 28.5.1989. It appears that two different set of persons claimed to be beneficiaries under these two wills. Consequently, the matter went to the civil Court in which the question of legality of two wills is under consideration. The civil matter is presently at the stage of second appeal in the High Court. Obviously, therefore, the genuineness and the reliability of the wills in question is seized by the High Court.

In the set of these circumstances, one of the beneficiaries filed a complaint on 23.12.1992, and made an allegation that the other side (accused) are relying on the other will for getting certain mutation entries, and thereby they have committed an offence of forgery etc. Thus, the position is that the genuineness of the wills would be the subject matter for consideration in second appeal as well as in the complaint filed, referred above. The counsel for the petitioner brought my attention to the case of Sardool Singh and another v. Smt. Nasib Kaur, 1987 Punjab Legal Reports and Statutes 633. In that case, similar question arose. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court observed that since the civil Court is seized of the question as regards the validity of the will, there was no justification to proceed with the criminal case. In that case Their Lordships were pleased to quash the criminal proceedings, with the observation that the order would not come in the way of instituting appropriate proceedings in the Court.

Counsel for the respondent on the other hand, placed reliance on B.N. Kashyap v. Emperior, AIR 1945 Lahore page 23, in which case question was regarding the genuineness of transaction and the Court has observed that finding given by the civil Court in action in personam has no relevance in the criminal Court. Obviously, that ruling has no relevance in the present situation. Another case of Pratibha Rani v. Suraj Kumar and another, AIR 1985 SC 628 has arisen out of the quashing of a complaint. In that case it was argued that since civil remedy was available, criminal remedy should not have been resorted to. The factual position in that case has no application in the present case. The case of State of Bihar and another v. Shri P.P. Sharma and another, JT 1991(2) SC 147 has also no relevance to the present situation because it pertain to a question of sanction to prosecute the public servant and quashing of FIR. The case of State of Rajasthan v. M/s. Kalyan Sundaram Cement Industries Ltd. and others, JT 1996(3) SC 162, has no relevance to the present facts because in that case the criminal matter pertained to suit based on execution of an agreement.

In this case, the Magistrate is already seized of the matter, as well as he has issued summons to the accused. Under these circumstances, in my opinion, the ends of justice would be served by staying further proceedings in the criminal case. The criminal proceedings can proceed further after the decision in the civil matter. Petition disposed of.