Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 608 (CAL)

Arun Kumar Choudhury v. Uma Rani Paul

2008-06-23

JYOTIRMAY BHATTACHARYA

body2008
JUDGMENT 1. The plaintiff/opposite party No. 1 filed a criminal proceeding under section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the learned ACMM, Calcutta complaining that certain documents were created by forgery by the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 in connivance with the defendant Nos. 3 to 7. A chargesheet has already been framed in the said criminal proceeding and the said proceeding has since been transferred for trial to the Court of the learned Judge, 4th Bench of the Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta. 2. The plaintiff/opposite party has also filed a suit, inter alia, praying for a declaration that those purported documents were created by forgery by the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 in connivance with the defendant Nos. 3 to 7. Several other incidental reliefs have also been prayed for in the said suit. 3. In the said civil suit, the defendant Nos. 4 and 5 filed an application, inter alia, praying for stay of further proceeding of the civil suit till the disposal of the criminal proceeding as the issue regarding creation of those documents by forgery is common in the civil suit as well as in the criminal proceeding. 4. The said defendants further stated in their said application that the documents which were relied upon by the said defendants in their written statement in the said suit have already been seized by the police authorities in connection with the said criminal proceeding. As such, the said defendants will not be in a position to prove those documents in course of trial of the civil suit. 5. Under such circumstances, the defendants prayed for stay of the said civil suit till the disposal of the criminal proceedings. 6. The learned Trial Judge dismissed the petitioner's said application by holding, inter alia, that prayer for such stay cannot be allowed as the charges in the criminal case and the issues in the civil suit are not identical. 7. Challenging the propriety of the said order of the learned Trial Judge, the petitioner has filed this revisional application before this Court. 8. Heard Mr. Mukherjee, learned Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Roy, learned Advocate for the opposite party. Considered the materials on record including the order impugned. 9. Though it is rightly pointed out by Mr. 7. Challenging the propriety of the said order of the learned Trial Judge, the petitioner has filed this revisional application before this Court. 8. Heard Mr. Mukherjee, learned Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Roy, learned Advocate for the opposite party. Considered the materials on record including the order impugned. 9. Though it is rightly pointed out by Mr. Mukherjee that the issue regarding forgery is the subject-matter of consideration in the criminal proceeding as well as in the Civil Court, but it is settled law of the land that the decision in the criminal proceeding is not binding upon the Civil Court. The decision in the criminal proceeding does not operate as res judicata on the identical issue in the civil suit. That apart, standard of proof in civil cases and in the criminal cases is not identical. Civil suit is tried on the basis of the rule of preponderance of probabilities while the criminal proceeding is tried on the basis of proof beyond doubt. 10. Since the scope of enquiry in a criminal proceeding is different from the scope of enquiry in the civil suit and since the decision in the criminal proceeding is not binding upon the Civil Court, this Court holds that the proceeding before the Civil Court cannot be stayed merely because of pendency of the criminal proceeding before the Criminal Court even though identical issues are involved before the Civil Court as well as before the Criminal Court. 11. This Court also does not find any substance in the submission of Mr. Mukherjee to this effect that the documents which were seized by the police authorities cannot be proved by the petitioner in connection with the civil suit as elaborate provisions are contained in Order 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure in this regard. 12. Under such circumstances, this Court does not find any justification to interfere with the order impugned. 13. The revisional application stands, thus, rejected. 14. Urgent xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties as expeditiously as possible. Jyotirmay Bhattacharya, J.: Revisional application rejected.