Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 335 (CAL)

M. M. T. C. v. State of West Bengal

2001-06-19

ARUNABHA BARUA

body2001
JUDGMENT Arunava Barua, J. Heard the learned Advocates for the petitioners. No one appears for the other side. 2. This revisional application under sections 402, 401 read with section 482 of Cr. P.C. is directed against an. order dated 13.9.2000 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 11th Court, Calcutta arising out of a Complaint Case No. CS/571 of 1998 under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. 3. By the impugned order the learned Magistrate stayed the proceeding of the case until further orders because of the fact that the matter was referred to the Honourable High Court for arbitration and the same was pending before the Honourable High Court. This the learned Magistrate did this when he was to hear the petition dated 5.4.2000 filed by the accused praying for dropping/staying the proceeding. 4. The learned Advocate for the complainant/petitioner submits several decisions of the High Court and one of the Supreme Court to say that the criminal case is not required to be stayed till the disposal of the suit filed before a Civil Court. While the Supreme Court has ruled in the case of State of Rajasthan vs. Kalyan Sundaram Cement Industries Ltd. & Ors., 1996 (3) Crimes 92 (SC), 1996(2) Civil L. Journal 392, that pendency of criminal matter would not be an impediment to proceed with civil suits and that Courts rarely stay criminal cases and only when the compelling circumstances require the exercise of the power by the High Court to do so. The Calcutta High Court has specifically ruled in the case of Prabir Roy vs. State of West Bengal & Anr., in 1996(1) Crimes 454 (HC), that trial for criminal offence under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act cannot be avoided on the plea of arbitration agreement. 5. I think, the learned Magistrate was not justified in staying further proceedings of the case and the impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate dated 13.9.2000 cannot be sustained. Accordingly, this revisional application is al1owed and the learned Metropolitan Magistrate is directed to proceed with the case and the trial be concluded as expeditiously as possible. 6. If an urgent xerox certified copy of this order is applied for the same may be supplied as early as possible. Revisional application allowed.