Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 668 (ALL)

JHINKOO v. STATE OF U P

2002-05-09

B.K.RATHI

body2002
B. K. RATHI, J. The Respondent No. 2 moved an application under Section 156 (3) Crpc against the petitioners. The IInd Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Azamgarh on 28-4-2000 allowed the application by order Annexure No. 3 to the affidavit, and directed the police to register the case and investigate. The petitioners preferred the revision, Annexure No. 4 to the affidavit, which have also been dismissed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 7, Azamgarh on 2-4-2002, Annexure No. 5 to the affidavit. Therefore, the present petition has been filed to quash the impugned orders. 2. I have heard Sri N. C. Rajvanshi, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri M. K. Rajvanshi, learned Counsel for the petitioners, Sri B. N. Yadav, learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 2 and the learned AGA. 3. In brief it is alleged in the application moved by the Respondent No. 2 that his father died in the year 1995. However, the petitioners got executed the sale-deed of the land of his father from some fictitious person on 20-1-1997 and therefore, they have committed offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 464, 465, 470, 471, 472 IPC. 4. It has been argued by Sri N. C. Rajvanshi that the dispute is purely of civil nature and the Respondent No. 2 had already filed suit No. 94 of 2000 in the Court of Civil Judge for cancellation of the sale deed on the same ground ; that the validity of the sale-deed shall be decided in the suit and therefore, the criminal case should be stayed till the decision of the above suit. 5. The learned Counsel for the petitioners in support of the argument has referred to the decision of the apex Court in Tukaram Annaba Chavan and another v. Machindra Yeshwant Patil and another, 2001 (2) JIC 65 (SC) : 2001 (1) ACrr 694 (SC ). It was observed in this case that "the controversy raised in the case relates to the election of the Board of Directors of the Modern Education Society, Atpadi, which is registered under the provisions of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950. The matter is pending before the Assistant Charity Commissioner, Sangli, who is to determine the validity or otherwise of the Change Report submitted by the appellants. The matter is pending before the Assistant Charity Commissioner, Sangli, who is to determine the validity or otherwise of the Change Report submitted by the appellants. On perusal of the record, it is found that a contention in the proceeding relating to the confirmation or otherwise of the Change Report, a contention has been raised that the documents on the basis of which the report has been submitted have been forged and fabricated by the appellants. In all probability, that question will also arise for consideration by the authority. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it is considered view that in the interest of justice and for a fair trial the proceedings in the criminal case should remain suspended till the proceeding pending before the Assistant Charity Commissioner, Sangli is disposed of by him. Order accordingly. " 6. This case has no application to the facts of the present case and there was also no proceedings pending in the Civil Court. 7. The other decision referred to is M/s. Karamchand Ganga Pershad and another v. Union of India and others, AIR 1971 SC 1244 . In this case the goods were forfeited by the Government on the ground that the export was banned by order issued under Essential Commodities Act. Writ petition was filed challenging the forfeiture on the ground that the ban was lifted at the time of the export. The writ petition was dismissed by the High Court on the ground of pendency of criminal case. The apex Court had held that the High Court committed illegality in dismissing the writ petition and has further observed that the decision of the Civil Court is binding on Criminal Courts but the converse is not true. 8. The above decisions were given in the circumstances of the cases and cannot be applied to the facts of the present case. It may be mentioned that Sections 40 to 43 of the Evidence Act relate as to what judgments are relevant. Section 43 of the Evidence Act further provide that judgments other than those mentioned in Sections 40, 41 and 42 are irrelevant. The judgment of the Civil Court of the suit which has already been filed shall not be relevant under Sections 40, 41 and 42 of the Evidence Act. Section 43 of the Evidence Act further provide that judgments other than those mentioned in Sections 40, 41 and 42 are irrelevant. The judgment of the Civil Court of the suit which has already been filed shall not be relevant under Sections 40, 41 and 42 of the Evidence Act. Therefore, the said judgment will be irrelevant in the criminal case according to the provisions of Section 43 of the Evidence Act. Therefore, till the decision of a case the judgment of which will not be relevant, the proceedings of the criminal case cannot be held up. Therefore, the argument of the learned Counsel cannot be accepted. 9. In this connection, I may also refer to the decision of the apex Court in Kamaladevi Agarwal v. State of W. B. and others, 2002 (1) JIC 5 (SC) : 2002 (1) SCC 555 . In this case the complainant made out a prima facie case against the accused persons of forging of a document. It was observed that the High Court was not justified in quashing the criminal proceedings merely on the ground that the same document was under scrutiny by it in a civil proceedings initiated by the same complainant. That the nature and standard of proof in civil and criminal proceedings are different. This is a direct decision on the point. 10. In view of the above, the proceedings of the criminal case cannot be held up. 11. The petition is therefore, fails and is hereby dismissed. Petition dismissed. .