Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 434 (PNJ)

Manmohan Singh v. State Of Punjab

2001-04-18

S.S.NIJJAR

body2001
JudgmentJudgment S.S.Nijjar, J. 1. The first information report of which the quashing is sought in the present case is based on the allegation that the agreement for sale dated 26.6.1997 is a forged document. The petitioners have filed a suit for permanent injunction alleging therein that the agreement for sale is a genuine document and on the basis of the same, they have been put into possession of the disputed Buses. The Civil Court has come to a prima facie conclusion that the possession of the plaintiffs is established. Thus, defendants in the suit, i.e. respondents in the present case, have been restrained from interfering in the plying of the buses which are the subject matter of the dispute. 2. Mr. Varinder Singh has submitted that since the subject matter of the civil suit and the FIR is the same, further proceedings in the criminal matter ought to be stayed. 3. Mr. Hundal, however, relies on the Constitutional Benchs judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of M.S. Sheriff and another v. State of Madras, AIR 1954 SC 397 and submits that the criminal proceedings cannot be stayed. 4. I have considered the entire matter. I am of the considered opinion that the criminal proceedings, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, cannot be stayed. The suit pending in the Civil Court pertains only to seeking relief of injunction. There is no suit filed by the petitioners seeking a declaration to the effect that they have clear title of the ownership of the buses. The Supreme Court while considering the matter in M.S. Sheriffs case (supra) has clearly held that As between the civil and the criminal proceedings, the criminal matters should be given precedence. However, it has also been held that no hard and fast rule can be laid down. The Supreme Court also observed that the possibility of conflicting decisions in the civil and criminal Courts is not a relevant consideration. The law envisages such an eventuality when it expressly refrains from making the decision of one Court, binding on the other, or even relevant, except for certain limited purposes, such as sentence or damages. In that particular case, the Supreme Court in fact stayed the civil suit till the conclusion of the criminal proceedings. 5. Apart from the above, I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. In that particular case, the Supreme Court in fact stayed the civil suit till the conclusion of the criminal proceedings. 5. Apart from the above, I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. I am of the considered opinion that the petition involves disputed questions of fact which cannot be gone into by this Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The material facts highlighted in the petition and the reply would more appropriately be dealt with by the trial Court, on the basis of the evidence adduced by the parties. In view of the above, this petition is dismissed.