Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 291 (ORI)

K. Sitaram Patro v. K. Saraladevi Patro

2016-04-18

A.K.RATH

body2016
JUDGMENT : A.K. Rath, J. In this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed, inter alia, to stay the further proceeding of C.S. No.114 of 2005 of the court of the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Berhampur till disposal of Sessions Case No.2 of 2003 pending in the court of the learned Asst. Sessions Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Berhampur. 02. The opposite party as plaintiff instituted the suit claiming compensation of Rs.1,11,000/- impleading the petitioners as defendants. The case of the plaintiff is that the marriage between her daughter and defendant no.2 was solemnized in accordance with the hindu rites and customs. As per the demand of the defendants, the plaintiff had given articles including cash amounting to Rs.1,50,000/-. At the time of negotiation, she had spend an amount of Rs.50,000/- towards articles. While the matter stood thus, defendant no.2 committed murder of her daughter. Thereafter, F.I.R. was lodged and Berhampur P.S. Case No.54 of 2001 was registered. The said case corresponds to G.R. Case No.884 of 2001. The case has been committed to the court of the Asst. Sessions Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Berhampur and renumbered as Sessions Case No.2 of 2003. With this factual scenario, the suit was filed. 03. Pursuant to issuance of summons, the defendants entered appearance and sought for adjournment to file written statement. 04. Mr. Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that petitioners are facing sessions trial. They cannot be compelled to make a statement, which will be ultimately used against them. In the event they file written statement, they will be seriously prejudiced in the criminal case. The instant case is an exceptional one. In view of the same, the further proceeding of the suit be stayed. He relied on the decision of this Court in the case of Chagala Kumar Panigrahi and others vs. Smt. Ujjal Senapati and others, 1998(I) OLR 273. 05. The Constitution Bench of the apex Court in the case of M.S. Sheriff and another vs. State of Madras and others, AIR 1954 SC 397 , in paragraph nos.15 and 16 held thus:- “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. 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 decision 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 the 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 interest 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 Section 476. But in this case we are of the view that civil suits should be stayed till the criminal proceedings have finished.” 06. In State of Rajasthan v. Kalyan Sundaram Cement Industries Ltd. and others, (1996) 3 SCC 87 , the apex Court in paragraph 3 of the report held thus:- “3. It is settled law that pendency of the criminal matters would not be an impediment to 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 the exercise of their power. We have never come across stay of any civil suits by the courts so far. 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 the 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 such orders. 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.” (emphasis laid) 07. It is apt to state here that in Guru Granth Saheb Sthan Meerghat Vanaras v. Ved Prakash and others, (2013) 7 SCC 622 , the apex Court held that in M.S. Sheriff and another cited supra does not lay down an invariable rule that simultaneous prosecution of criminal proceedings and civil suit will embarrass the accused or that invariably the proceedings in the civil suit should be stayed until disposal of criminal case. 08. In Chagala Kumar Panigrahi and others cited supra, this Court held that no hard and fast rule can be laid down so far as the stay of the suit or a criminal case as the case may be. The same depends upon the facts and circumstances of each of the case. Though ordinarily the civil suit may not be stayed merely due to the pendency of a criminal case for the very same incident, depending upon the facts and circumstances of a given case, in exceptional circumstances the Court is not powerless to grant stay of further proceeding of a suit in the interest of justice. It was further held that the said case was exceptional in nature to which the enunciation of law laid down in Kalyan Sundaram Cement Industries Ltd. & others (supra) may not apply. It was further held that the said case was exceptional in nature to which the enunciation of law laid down in Kalyan Sundaram Cement Industries Ltd. & others (supra) may not apply. Having regard to the nature of allegations, the Court stayed the further proceeding of the suit, since the petitioner will be highly prejudiced in the case, if they are forced to disclose their defence. But then, in Kalyan Sundaram Cement Industries Ltd. & others (supra), the apex Court had taken strong exception to the view taken by the High Court & held that the High Court proceeded on a wrong premises that the accused be expected to disclose their defence in the criminal case by asking them to proceed with the trial of the suit and the same is not a correct principle of law. The ratio of the said case applies with full force to the facts of this case. 09. The logical sequitur of the analysis made in the preceding paragraph is that likelihood of the prejudice of the defendants facing criminal trial to disclose defence is per se no ground to stay the further proceedings of the suit or allow the defendants to file written statement after trial in the criminal case is over. 10. On taking a holistic view of the matter, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petition must fail. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. No costs.