Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 972 (PNJ)

Tej Kaur v. State of Punjab

2010-02-23

AJAI LAMBA

body2010
JUDGMENT Ajai Lamba, J. (Oral).:- This order shall dispose of two petitions viz. Criminal Revision No.332 of 2009 (Tej Kaur vs. State of Punjab and others) and Criminal Revision No.144 of 2009 (State of Punjab vs. Paramjit Kaur and others), filed against common impugned order dated 14.7.2008, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc), Fast Track Court, Gurdaspur. 2. For reference to record, Criminal Revision No.332 of 2009 (Tej Kaur vs. State of Punjab and others) is being taken up. 3. Vide order dated 5.2.2007 (Annexure P-3), Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurdaspur, on perusal of the material placed before him, came to the conclusion that there was sufficient evidence against the accused, who prepared a forged Will. Accordingly, it has been ordered that the charges be framed against accused/respondents No.2 to 4 under Sections 467, 468, 471, 420, 120-B, Indian Penal Code. 4. A revision petition was carried by the accused against the charge-sheet. The revisional court, vide the impugned order, has observed that during the course of investigation, report of the Forensic Science Laboratory, Chandigarh, was obtained, in which it was opined that the alleged signatures of Tarlok Singh on Will dated 20.3.2004 do not tally with his signatures on the Special Power of Attorney, already executed by him. As such, on this ground, criminal case under Sections 467, 468, 471, 420, Indian Penal Code, was registered against the accused, in which charges have been framed. No fault has been found in the order of trial court in regard to framing of charges. The proceedings before the lower court, however, have been stayed till the decision of the civil suit. This has been so ordered in view of the fact that the matter had been taken to the civil court in challenge to the Will. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India rendered in Rashida Kamaluddin Syed and another vs. Shaikh Saheblal Mardan (dead) through Lrs. and another, 2007(2) RCR (Criminal) 154 and Kamaladevi Agarwal vs. State of West Bengal, 2001(4) RCR (Criminal) 522, to contend that the proceedings on criminal side could not have been stayed till decision of the civil suit. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent-accused contends that the civil court is required to adjudicate on the issue. and another, 2007(2) RCR (Criminal) 154 and Kamaladevi Agarwal vs. State of West Bengal, 2001(4) RCR (Criminal) 522, to contend that the proceedings on criminal side could not have been stayed till decision of the civil suit. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent-accused contends that the civil court is required to adjudicate on the issue. The parties have been given liberty to allow the criminal case to continue after the decision of the civil court and, therefore, no illegality can be traced in the impugned order. 7. I have considered the contentions of the learned counsel for the parties. 8. In Rashida Kamaluddin Syed’s case (supra), the following has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in para-27 of the judgment:- “27. Finally, the contention that a civil suit is filed by the complainant and is pending has also not impressed us. If a civil suit is pending, an appropriate order will be passed by the competent Court. That, however, does not mean that if the accused have committed any offence, jurisdiction of criminal court would be ousted. Both the proceedings are separate, independent and one cannot abate or defeat the other.” 9. In Kamaladevi Agarwal’s case (supra), the following has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in para-12 of the judgment:- “12. Again in M. Krishnan v. Vijay Singh and Anr., Criminal Appeal No.1028 of 2001 decided on 11.10.2001 : 2001(4) RCR (Crl) 405 (SC) this Court held that while exercising powers under section 482 of the Code, the High Court should be slow in interfering with the proceedings at the initial stage and that merely because the nature of the dispute is primarily of a civil nature, the criminal prosecution cannot be quashed because in cases of forgery and fraud there is always some element of civil nature. In a case where the accused alleged that the transactions between the parties are of a civil nature and the criminal court cannot proceed with the complaint because the factum of document being forged was pending in the civil court, the court observed : “Accepting such a general proposition would be against the provisions of law inasmuch as in all cases of cheating and fraud, in the whole transaction, there is generally some element of civil nature. However, in this case, the allegations were regarding the forging of the documents and acquiring gains on the basis of such forged documents. The proceedings could not be quashed only because the respondents had filed a civil suit with respect to the aforesaid documents. In a criminal court the allegations made in the complaint have to be established independently, notwithstanding the adjudication by a civil court. Had the complainant failed to prove the allegations made by him in the complaint, the respondents were entitled to discharge or acquittal but not otherwise. If mere pendency of a suit is made a ground for quashing the criminal proceedings, the unscrupulous litigants, apprehending criminal action against them, would be encouraged to frustrate the course of justice and law by filing suits with respect to the documents intended to be used against them after the initiation of criminal proceedings or in anticipation of such proceedings. Such a course cannot be the mandate of law. Civil proceedings, as distinguished from the criminal action, have to be adjudicated and concluded by adopting separate yardsticks. The onus of proving the allegations beyond reasonable doubt, in criminal case, is not applicable in the civil proceedings which can be decided merely on the basis of the probabilities with respect to the acts complained of.” 10. The issue of conflicting decisions rendered by civil and criminal courts and, therefore, the necessity of staying the proceedings on the criminal side, has also been considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, while dealing with the case of Iqbal Singh Marwah and another vs. Meenakshi Marwah and another, 2005(4) SCC 370. The following has been held in para-24 thereof:- “24. Coming to the last contention that an effort should be made to avoid conflict of findings between the civil and criminal Courts, it is necessary to point out that the standard of proof required in the two proceedings are entirely different. Civil cases are decided on the basis of preponderance of evidence while in a criminal case the entire burden lies on the prosecution and proof beyond reasonable doubt has to be given. There is neither any statutory provision nor any legal principle that the findings recorded in one proceeding may be treated as final or binding in the other, as both the cases have to be decided on the basis of the evidence adduced therein. There is neither any statutory provision nor any legal principle that the findings recorded in one proceeding may be treated as final or binding in the other, as both the cases have to be decided on the basis of the evidence adduced therein. While examining a similar contention in an appeal against an order directing filing of a complaint under Section 476 of old Code, the following observations made by a Constitution Bench in M.S. Sheriff v. State of Madras, AIR 1954 SC 397 give a complete answer to the problem posed : “(15) As between the civil and the criminal proceedings we are of the opinion that the criminal matters should be given precedence. There is some difference of opinion in the High Courts of India on this point. No hard and fast rule can be laid down but we do not consider that the possibility of conflicting decisions in the civil and criminal Courts is 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. The only relevant consideration here is the likelihood of embarrassment. (16) Another factor which weighs with us is that a civil suit often drags on for years and it is undesirable that a criminal prosecution should wait till everybody concerned has forgotten all about the crime. The public interests demand that criminal justice should be swift and sure; that the guilty should be punished while the events are still fresh in the public mind and that the innocent should be absolved as early as is consistent with a fair and impartial trial. Another reason is that it is undesirable to let things slide till memories have grown too dim to trust. This, however, is not a hard and fast rule. Special considerations obtaining in any particular case might make some other course more expedient and just. For example, the civil case or the other criminal proceeding may be so near its end as to make it inexpedient to stay it in order to give precedence to a prosecution ordered under S. 476. But in this case we are of the view that the civil suits should be stayed till the criminal proceedings have finished.” 11. For example, the civil case or the other criminal proceeding may be so near its end as to make it inexpedient to stay it in order to give precedence to a prosecution ordered under S. 476. But in this case we are of the view that the civil suits should be stayed till the criminal proceedings have finished.” 11. In view of the law, as referred to above, it is clear that criminal matters should take precedence, as between civil and criminal proceedings. The law does not envisage that decision of one court would be binding on the other. Public interest itself demands that criminal justice should be swift and sure. The guilty should be punished while the events are still fresh in the mind of the public. It is as important that innocent should be absolved as early as is consistent with a fair and impartial trial. 12. In the case in hand, the revisional court below, while taking into account the material placed before it, has held that, prima facie, there is sufficient material to indicate commission of offences under Sections 467, 468, 420, Indian Penal Code. In the face of such facts, no exceptional circumstance has been shown so as to call for stay of proceedings before the criminal court, while the civil suit is pending adjudication. 13. In view of the above, both the petitions are allowed. Order passed by the revisional court below is set aside to the extent it directs stay of proceedings before the trial court, till the decision of the civil suit. 14. Resultantly, the trial court is directed to proceed with the trial of the accused expeditiously, in view of the delay already caused. ——————