Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 1423 (PNJ)

State Of Punjab v. Hira Singh

2001-12-21

V.M.JAIN

body2001
Judgment V.M.Jain, J. 1. This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. filed by the State of Punjab, against the accused-respondents, seeking the quashment of the order dated 9.7.1998, passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana, staying the proceedings in the criminal case against the accused-respondents, till the decision of the civil suit petition between the parties. 2. The facts in brief are that a case was registered against accused- respondents Hira Singh etc. After completion of the investigation, the State had filed challan against accused-respondents Hira Singh etc. under Sections 457/380/427/506/148/149 IPC. During the pendency of the proceedings before the Judicial Magistrate, accused-respondents Hira Singh etc. moved an application, in the case State v. Hira Singh etc., for staying the proceedings in the said case till the decision of the civil suit, titled as "Hira Singh v. Mohan singh". It was alleged in the application that the accused had a good prima facie case and they were likely to succeed in the said civil suit pending between the parties. It was alleged that the criminal case was got registered on the basis of the false allegations against them. It was accordingly played that the proceedings in the criminal case be stayed till the decision of the civil suit. The said application of the accused- respondents was contested by the State by filing written reply and alleging therein that the police had rightly registered the case against the accused and that the accused had no prima facie case in their favour and that the criminal proceedings could not be stayed, as both the remedies i.e. civil and criminal, were not mutually exclusive and essentially differ in their content and consequences and there was no bar of continuation of criminal proceedings. After hearing the both sides, the learned trial Magistrate, stayed the proceedings in the criminal case, till the decision of the civil suit, vide order dated 9.7.1988, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate. The said order of the learned Judicial Magistrate was challenged by the State of Punjab before the Sessions Court, by way of revision petition. After hearing the both sides, the learned trial Magistrate, stayed the proceedings in the criminal case, till the decision of the civil suit, vide order dated 9.7.1988, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate. The said order of the learned Judicial Magistrate was challenged by the State of Punjab before the Sessions Court, by way of revision petition. However, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, vide order dated 27.4.2000, dismissed the said revision petition, holding that the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate was interlocutory in the nature and the revision was not competent, in view of the bar of Section 397(2) Cr.P.C. Accordingly, the revision petition was dismissed being not maintainable. Thereupon, the State of Punjab filed the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in this Court, challenging the legality of the order dated 9.7.1998 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, vide which the learned Magistrate had stayed further proceedings in the criminal case, till the decision of the civil suit. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record carefully. 4. The learned counsel for the State of Punjab (petitioner), assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant, submitted before me that the proceedings before the trial Court could not be stayed merely on the ground that the civil proceedings are also pending between the parties. Reliance has been placed on the law laid down by the Honble Supreme Court, in the case reported as Usha Ahuja v. State of Haryana and others, JT 1999(6) SC 204 : 1999(4) RCR(Crl.) 52 (SC). On the other hand, the learned counsel for the accused-respondents submitted before me that the learned Magistrate had rightly ordered the staying of criminal proceedings and no case for interference by this Court in the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was made out. 5. After hearing both sides and after perusing the record, in my opinion, the present petition must be allowed and the order dated 9.7.1998 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, must be set aside. 6. The learned Judicial Magistrate, had ordered the stay of the proceedings before the criminal court on the ground that the matter was also pending before the Civil Court and that the finding of the civil court was binding on the criminal Court. Accordingly, the proceedings before the Criminal Court were stayed by the learned Magistrate. 6. The learned Judicial Magistrate, had ordered the stay of the proceedings before the criminal court on the ground that the matter was also pending before the Civil Court and that the finding of the civil court was binding on the criminal Court. Accordingly, the proceedings before the Criminal Court were stayed by the learned Magistrate. In JT 1999(6) SC 204 : 1999(4) RCR (Crl.) 52 (SC) (supra), civil suit between the parties was already pending and in the meanwhile a complaint was also filed on the basis of which FIR was registered in the Police Station. The accused filed petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. before the High Court seeking the quashment of the FIR. The High Court, after noting that a civil suit was pending between the parties and that the investigation by the Police was in progress, stayed the filing of the final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. "till the decision of the Suit". Aggrieved against this order passed by the High Court, the complainant filed appeal before the Honble Supreme Court. After hearing both sides, the Honble Supreme Court set aside the order passed by the High Court and it was held that it was of utmost importance that the criminal cases be disposed of expeditiously, as right of an accused to have speedy trial is a right which flows from Article 21 of the Constitution. It was further held that far from ensuring speedy trial, the High Court placed embargo at the pre-trial stage by staying the filing of the final report by the Police under Section 173 Cr.P.C. It was further held that it was a well known fact that disposal of a civil suit takes fairly long time, so no useful purpose would be achieved by staying the filing of the final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. by the Police till the disposal of the suit. It was further held that the impugned order (passed by the High Court) would serve no useful purpose, nay, it is wholly extraneous to the purposes for which the power is preserved. It was further held that it was most inappropriate to stay the filing of the final report by the Police under Section 173 Cr.P.C. after the Police had investigated the case. 7. It was further held that it was most inappropriate to stay the filing of the final report by the Police under Section 173 Cr.P.C. after the Police had investigated the case. 7. In view of the law laid down by the Honble Supreme Court, in the above mentioned authority, in my opinion, it would be clear that the order passed by the learned Magistrate, staying the further proceedings in the criminal case, is liable to be set aside, inasmuch as no case was made out for staying further proceedings in the criminal case merely because the civil suit was pending between the parties. In my opinion, the present case is squarely covered by the law laid down by their Lordships of Supreme Court, in Usha Ahujas case (supra). 8. For the reasons recorded above, the present petition is allowed, the order dated 9.7.1998, passed by the Judicial Magistrate, is set aside and it is directed that the criminal case shall continue, in accordance with law, irrespective of the pendency of the civil suit between the parties. 9. Since the criminal proceedings were stayed by the learned trial Magistrate, the parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the learned trial Court on 4.2.2002 for further proceedings, in accordance with law.