Seenichamy and Others vs Ramakrishnammal

Paul, J.—Crl. M.P. No. 604 of 1977 is a petition under S. 482, Crl.P.C. for stay of all further proceedings in C.C. No. 409 of 1977 on the

file of the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Kovilpatti, pending disposal of O.S. No. 347 of 1977 on the file of the Court of the District Muasif of

Kovilpatti. Crl.M.P. No. 589 of 1978 is a petition to vacate the interim stay granted in Crl.M.P. No. 6604 of 1977.

In C.C. No. 409 of 1977 the petitioners in Crl.M.P. No. 6604/77 are being prosecuted by the respondent Ramakrishnammal for the offence of

defamation punishable under S. 500, I.P.C., alleging that the petitioners had defamed her by publishing marriage invitation cards as if she was going

to be married to the first accused; when in reality there was no such proposed marriage at all. The contention of the petitioners is that actually

marriage took place on 8th September 1977 between the respondent and the first accused and they both lived as husband and wife for some days,

but due to the evil advice of her mother the respondent went away from her husband deserting him, whereupon the first accused issued a notice

through a lawyer and subsequently filed a civil suit before the District Munsif of Kovilpatti in O.S. No. 347 of 1977 for a declaration that there was

a valid marriage between him and the respondent. Contending that the subject matter of the aforesaid criminal complaint and the civil suit being the

same and the finding of the civil Court would have a direct bearing on the Criminal case, inasmuch as if it is declared in the civil suit that the

complainant is the legally wedded wife of the first accused then there would be no question of defamation at all, the petitioners have asked for stay

of the criminal proceedings against them till the disposal of the civil suit. It is further contended that the object of the criminal proceedings was only

to prejudice the trial of the civil suit and use the same as a lever to coerce the petitioners into a compromise in the civil suit and that the filing of the

criminal complaint is a clear abuse of the process of law.

The learned counsel for the petitioners in support of the aforesaid contentions has cited the decision in Bishambar Das and another v. Emperor

AIR 1927 Lah 17. There one Sant Ram, the complainant entered into certain transactions with the petitioner''s firm Hemraj-Bishambar Das of

Jullundur and Bishambar Das Bodhraj of Bombay both those firms belonging to Bishambar Das and Mai Raj, son of Bishambar Das. The

complainant Sant Ram instituted a complaint for an offence under S. 420, I.P.C. against both Bishambar Das and Mai Raj. A civil suit was pending

in the Bombay High Court on its original side with regard to all the transactions between both the parties including the transaction in question. It

was held by a single judge of the Lahore High Court that where the subject matter of both a criminal case and a civil suit pending in another Court

is the same, the criminal case should be stayed. The learned Judge has referred to the decision in Emperor v. Bisher Das 8 I.C. 1161 where it had

been held that it was very sound general principle that parties should not be encouraged to resort to criminal Courts in a case in which the point at

issue is one which can more appropriately be decided by a Civil Court and that there was unfortunately a tendency on the part of persons, who

considered themselves aggrieved to rush to the Criminal Courts either for purpose of obtaining at small cost to themselves a decision on matters

which ought in the ordinary course of things to be adjudicated upon by the Civil Courts or of prejudicing the course of proceedings already

instituted or about to be instituted in a Civil Court by the other side.

Yet another decision cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners is the one in Anna Ayyar v. Emperor ILR Mad 226 . It was held in that

case that the defendant in a civil suit ought not to be allowed to prejudice the trial of such suit by launching and proceeding with a criminal

prosecution on the same facts against the plaintiff and his witnesses and such proceedings if launched, will be stayed by the High Court in the

exercise of its powers of superintendence. In that case one S, the daughter of the first petitioner and sister of the other petitioners died leaving a

Will by which she bequeathed her properties to her brothers and the Will on being presented to the Sub Registrar for registration was objected to

by the counter-petitioners on the ground that it was not executed by the deceased S. Registration was thereupon refused on the ground that the

execution of the Will had not been proved. The District Registrar, on appeal, also confirmed that order. Thereupon the petitioners 2 to 4 filed a

Civil Suit for registration of the document under S. 77 of the Registration Act. While that suit was pending the counter-petitioners without obtaining

the sanction preferred a complaint before the Magistrate against the petitioners alleging that they had forged the Will of S. It might be noted that it

was after the institution of the civil suit that the defendant in the civil suit preferred the complaint before the Criminal Court. It was in these

circumstances that a Division Bench of this Court held as stated above.

These decisions, in my view, would not apply to the facts of the case now before me. The criminal complaint against the petitioners is that they

had defamed the respondent by publishing a marriage invitation as if the respondent was to be married to the first accused and thereby committed

an offence punishable under S. 500, I.P.C. The only question to be determined in the criminal proceedings was whether such an invitation was

published when in reality there was no proposal for the marriage of the first accused with the respondent. The civil suit which was instituted

subsequent to the institution of the criminal proceedings is only for a declaration that the respondent-complainant is the legally wedded wife of the

first accused. Therefore, the point at issue in the civil suit is entirely different from the point at issue in the criminal proceedings. In the criminal

proceeding the rights of parties are not decided. The Criminal Court deals with the question as to whether an offence has been committed. It is in

the civil suit only that the rights of parties are determined. The Criminal Court and Civil Court work within each of their own allotted spheres.

Though in Criminal Court, decisions of the Civil Court with regard to rights of parties are respected, yet a criminal proceeding cannot be stayed to

await the decision of a Civil Court on the rights of parties, even if those rights have some connection with the facts constituting the criminal

proceeding. If a contention that in such circumstances as these the criminal proceedings should be stayed till the disposal of the civil suit is

accepted, then number of criminal proceedings could be successfully stayed by the accused going on filing civil suits on the plea that a

determination of certain rights in the civil suit will have a bearing on the facts alleged in the criminal proceedings. For example, in a case of rioting in

connection with a dispute over a property instituted against certain accused persons, they can successfully avoid the trial in the criminal case for

quite a number of years in filing a civil suit claiming title to the property and asking for a declaration that they, the accused, bad been in possession

of the property. Likewise, in a complaint for criminal trespass, such a criminal proceeding can be successfully thwarted by the filing of a civil suit by

the accused.

This is not a case where it can be said that in order to prejudice the trial of the civil suit, this criminal proceeding has been instituted. Nor can it

be said that the matter in question in the criminal proceeding ought in the ordinary course of things to be adjudicated upon by the Civil Court.

Therefore, I do not find any ground for staying the proceedings in C.C. No. 409 of 1977 on the file of the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate of

Kovilpatti. Crl.M.P. No. 6604/77 is dismissed and stay vacated. Crl. M.P. 589/78 is allowed.