Urmila Devi vs Surinder Pal

R.L. Anand, J.

Respondents No. 3 has since expired.

This is a criminal revision and has been directed against the order dated 22.10.1997 passed by the SubDivisional Judicial Magistrate, Khanna, who allowed the application of the accused and stayed the proceedings of the criminal complaint titled Urmila Devi v. Surinder Pal and another, till the final decision of the civil suit Urmila Devi v. Surinder Pal and another and Surinder Pal and another v. Urmila Devi, pending in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Khanna.

Urmila Devi filed a criminal complaint under Sections 193, 423, 468, 471 read with Section 34 IPC, against Surinder Pal and four others. During the pendency of this Criminal complaint, an application was moved on behalf of the respondents for the stay of the criminal proceedings on the allegations that the complaint which had been filed by Urmila Devi is false. In fact, the deceased Jang Singh had duly executed an agreement to sell dated 7.11.1987 in favour of respondents 1 and 2. The complainant had filed a suit for redemption against accused 1 and 2. In that suit titled as Urmila Devi v. Surinder Pal and others, a written statement has been filed and the agreement of sale dated 7.11.1987 has also been produced and the ownership of the complainant has been denied. Respondents 1 and 2 have also filed a suit for specific performance against the complainant on the basis of the agreement dated 7.11.1987 and that suit is also pending adjudication. In short, the submissions made by the respondents was that the agreement dated 7.11.1987 was the subject matter of two suits; one filed by the complainant and the other filed by the respondents. Finally, it was prayed by the respondents for the stay of the proceedings in the criminal complaint till the disposal of the civil suit. This revision of the respondents was contested and the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Khanna, for the reasons stated in the impugned order dated 22.10.1997 stayed the criminal proceedings. Aggrieved by the said order, the present revision.

I have heard Mr. S.P. Soni, counsel for the petitioner and Shri Ashok Aggarwal, counsel for the respondents.

Whether the civil and criminal proceedings can go parallel to each other or not will be the primary point for adjudication.

Jaswinder Pal Singh alias Bittu v. State of Punjab, 1997(4) RCR (Cri.) 629 is an authority on this aspect in which all the case law was discussed. The position of law as emerges out is that each case is to be considered on the facts and that there is no straitjacket formula that criminal case can be stayed when civil suit on the same matter is pending. However, it has been laid down in this very authority that mere pendency of the civil suit on the basis of a forged Power of Attorney is no ground to stay the criminal proceeding because the civil cases take considerable time. The possibility of conflicting decisions in Civil and Criminal Courts is not the relevant consideration because law envisages such an eventuality when it expressly refrains from making the decision of one Court binding on the other even relevant except for certain limited purpose.

Smt. Urmila Devi is basing her suit on the full fledged title whereas the petitioners are basing their claim on the basis of an agreement to sell. This court is of the considered opinion that there is no bar for carrying on the civil and criminal proceedings parallel with each other. Mohinder Singh Randhawa v. Harbhajan Singh, 1998(2) RCR (Cri.) 464 is yet another authority which again primarily deals with this aspect. It has been clearly laid down in this authority that criminal and civil proceedings are both competent and they can go parallel with each other and there is no ground to quash or stay the criminal proceedings, if the civil proceedings are going on with regard to the adjudication of agreement of sale.

In this view of the matter, I am not inclined to endorse the order dated 22.10.1997, passed by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Khanna, and the same is hereby set aside.

The revision stands allowed.

Counsel for the respondents, then, submitted that his clients may be permitted to take all the pleas which have been taken up in the application including the one that the criminal complaint filed by Urmila Devi was not competent in view of the bar under Section 195 Cr.P.C. This is a legal plea and all the pleas can always be taken up by the respondents in the criminal proceedings.

Revision allowed.