2008 (3) TMI 736 - SC - Indian Laws

High Court stayed the proceedings - Suit for specific performance of the contract - no deed of sale executed in terms of the agreement - Court quashed a proceeding under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as the matter pending before it arose out of a civil proceedings - HELD THAT - The High Court indisputably is a final court of fact. It may go into the correctness or otherwise of the findings arrived at by the learned Trial Judge. A fortiori it can set aside the findings of the court below that the Ex. A.15 is a forged document or its authenticity could not be proved by the respondent. It is, however, well-settled that in a given case, civil proceedings and criminal proceedings can proceed simultaneously. Whether civil proceedings or criminal proceedings shall be stayed depends upon the fact and circumstances of each case. See M.S. Sheriff v. State of Madras 1954 (3) TMI 76 - SUPREME COURT and Iqbal Singh Marwah v. Meenakshi Marwah 2005 (3) TMI 750 - SUPREME COURT . It is furthermore trite that Section 195(1)(b)(ii) of the Code of Criminal Procedure would not be attracted where a forged document has been filed. It was so held by a Constitution Bench of this Court in Iqbal Singh Marwah 2005 (3) TMI 750 - SUPREME COURT The impugned order, therefore, cannot be sustained which is set aside accordingly. Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) is allowed. We, however, are of the opinion that the High Court should be requested to hear the appeal as early as possible and preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. This, however, may not be taken to mean that we have entered into the merit of the matter. It goes without saying that the respondent shall be at liberty to take recourse to such a remedy which is available to him in law. We have interfered with the impugned order only because in law simultaneous proceedings of a civil and a criminal case is permissible. Hence, we are of the opinion that the interim order dated 24.05.2006 as modified by an order dated 17.07.2006 need not be interfered with particularly in view of the fact that according to the respondent it had made a payment of ₹ 35,47,000/- besides the disputed payment of ₹ 4,03,000/- and made deposits of ₹ 67,54,088/-. Therefore, Civil Appeal arising out of SLP is dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Dismissal of suit for specific performance due to lack of evidence.
2. Lodging of First Information Report (FIR) for fabricated document.
3. Appeal against judgment and decree.
4. Stay of criminal proceedings by the High Court.
5. Legality of staying the investigation of a criminal case.
6. Simultaneous civil and criminal proceedings.
7. Quashing of criminal proceeding under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
8. Setting aside the impugned order and requesting early hearing of the appeal.
9. Interference with the interim order and dismissal of one Civil Appeal.

Analysis:

1. The appellant, the owner of a cinema theatre, entered into an agreement of sale with the respondent. The suit for specific performance was dismissed due to insufficient evidence, including the lack of proof of payment and possession as per the agreement.

2. The appellant lodged an FIR alleging a fabricated document (receipt) by the respondent, leading to a criminal case.

3. The respondent appealed against the judgment and decree, seeking interim stay which was granted by the High Court with a monthly deposit condition.

4. The High Court stayed the criminal proceedings related to the fabricated document, and the appellant challenged this stay.

5. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in staying the investigation of the criminal case, emphasizing that civil and criminal proceedings can proceed simultaneously.

6. Referring to precedents, the Court clarified that the bar under Section 195(1)(b)(ii) of the CrPC does not apply when a forged document is filed, allowing independent criminal proceedings.

7. Citing a case precedent, the Court quashed a criminal proceeding under Section 145 of the CrPC, emphasizing the primacy of civil courts in property disputes.

8. The impugned order staying the investigation was set aside, and one Civil Appeal was allowed, while the other was dismissed.

9. The Court requested the High Court to expedite the appeal hearing without delving into the merits, maintaining the legality of simultaneous civil and criminal cases.

This detailed analysis covers the legal judgment comprehensively, addressing each issue involved in the case.