Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 54 (MP)

Ganesh Natrajan v. Kalpana Malhotra

2004-01-20

K.K.LAHOTI

body2004
Judgment ( 1. ) THE petitioner has filed this petition challenging the order Annexure P-4 passed by Family Court, Bhopal, in Miscellaneous Judicial Case No. 366a of 2002 between the petitioner and the respondent by which the Court has rejected the application filed by the petitioner under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. ( 2. ) THE contention of the petitioner is that the respondent Ms. Kalpana Malhotra filed a suit under Section 12 (1) (c) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, for annulling the marriage. This suit was filed in April, 2002. Before filing the aforesaid suit, respondent also filed a criminal complaint against the petitioner and five others under Sections 467, 468, 471, 496, 506 and Section 120-B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The contention of the petitioner is that in paras 9 and 11 the respondent has made following allegations against the petitioner: "9. That the complainant had no other go but bring it to the notice of his parents, who on inquiry found that not only false marriage certificate was got prepared by the accused persons but also a forged affidavit was prepared in her name. The parents got the copies of the marriage certificate and affidavits and ante-dated application from Adarsh Vivah Mandal. 11. That the complainant never appeared before the accused No. 4 Ramji Shrivastava, Notary, nor sworn any affidavit. Her signature on the affidavit are forged. " ( 3. ) HE further submits that in the suit filed by the respondent before the Family Court, she has pleaded following facts in paras 9 and 13 of the plaint: "9. That the applicant had no other go but to bring it to the notice of his parents, who on inquiry found that not only false marriage certificate was got prepared by the non-applicant and his associates but also a forged affidavit was prepared in her name. Then the parents of the applicant got the copies of the marriage certificate and affidavits and ante-dated application from Adarsh Vivah Mandal. It was discovered in the month of July, 2001. 13. Then the parents of the applicant got the copies of the marriage certificate and affidavits and ante-dated application from Adarsh Vivah Mandal. It was discovered in the month of July, 2001. 13. That the non-applicant persons had fraudulent intention as they know that they are going through the marriage ceremony on the basis of forged affidavit and ante-dated application which was got written under pressure, and as such also liable for the offence punishable under Section 496 of the Indian Penal Code. " ( 4. ) IT is contended on behalf of the petitioner that as pleadings in both the cases are identical and if the petitioner is compelled to file written statement his defence in criminal case will be prejudiced. In the circumstances, petitioner rightly filed an application under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure to stay the suit till decision of the criminal case. Reliance is placed on Radharaman v. Dena Bank, C. R. No. 308 of 1987, decided on 21. 7. 1989, reported in 1989-I MPWN S. No. 173 and New Bank of India v. Radhakishan and Co. and Ors. ( 1988 JLJ 687 ), and contended that the order passed by the Family Court be quashed and further proceedings in civil suit may be stayed. ( 5. ) LEARNED Counsel appearing for the respondent supported the order passed by the Trial Court and submitted that merely on the basis of the allegations made in the complaint and the plaint which are identical, proceedings in civil suit cannot be stayed. He has placed his reliance to Apex Court Judgment in State of Rajasthan v. Kalyan Sundaram Cement Industries Limited and Ors. , (1996) 3 SCC 87 ), and contended that in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court, proceedings in civil suit cannot be stayed. ( 6. ) FROM the perusal of the pleadings, it is apparent that the respondent apart from the other facts also made allegations against the petitioner in paras 9 and 11 of the complaint that the petitioner has got prepared false marriage certificate and a forged affidavit in the name of the respondent. She has also made allegation in para 11 that she never appeared before the Notary nor put her signature on the affidavit. Similar fact has been pleaded in paras 9 and 13 of the plaint. She has also made allegation in para 11 that she never appeared before the Notary nor put her signature on the affidavit. Similar fact has been pleaded in paras 9 and 13 of the plaint. The aforesaid facts show that those are identical and the contention made on behalf of the petitioner is that the defence in criminal case will be prejudiced if the petitioner is compelled to file written-statement in civil suit. Looking to the allegations, petitioner has to either explain the circumstances in the suit or may deny the aforesaid facts, but, merely on the basis of filing of criminal complaint, the proceedings in civil suit cannot be stayed. In Kalyan Sundaram Cement (supra) the Supreme Court held in para 3; "3. It is settled law that pendency of the criminal matters would not be an impediment to the proceed with the civil suits. The Criminal Court would deal with the offence punishable under the Act. On the other hand, the Courts rarely stay the criminal cases and only when the compelling circumstances require they exercise of their power, We have never come across stay of any civil suits by the Courts so far. The High Court of Rajasthan is only an exception to pass. The High Court proceeded on a wrong premise that the accused would be expected to disclose their defence in the criminal case by asking them to proceed with the trial of the suit. It is not a correct principle of law. Even otherwise, it no longer subsists, since many of them have filed their defences in the civil suit. On principle of law, we hold that the approach adopted by the High Court is not correct. But since the defence has already been filed nothing survives in this matter. " ( 7. ) IN view of the settled law by the Supreme Court, pendency of the criminal matters would not be an impediment to proceed with the civil suits. The Criminal Court would deal with the offences punishable in accordance with law while the Civil Court would decide the matter pending before it on the basis of pleadings. Looking to the averments, the petitioner has to explain the circumstances in the civil suit or may deny the aforesaid facts, but, it will not prejudice the defence of the petitioner in the criminal case in any manner. ( 8. Looking to the averments, the petitioner has to explain the circumstances in the civil suit or may deny the aforesaid facts, but, it will not prejudice the defence of the petitioner in the criminal case in any manner. ( 8. ) IN view of the aforesaid, Trial Court has rightly rejected the petitioners application to stay the proceedings of the civil suit till pendency of the criminal matter. I do not find any illegality warranting interference in the order of the Trial Court. Consequently, this petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.