9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the High Court was justified in staying the proceedings in the civil suit till the decision in the criminal case. Summary: Issue 1: Justification of High Court's Stay on Civil Suit Proceedings The short question for consideration in this appeal by special leave is whether High Court was justified in staying the proceedings in civil suit till the decision in criminal case. The Appellant filed an FIR against Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 for offences u/s 420, 467, 468, and 120B IPC, alleging execution of a false, forged, and fabricated will. Based on this will, Respondents obtained a mutation order. A challan was filed, and the trial is ongoing. The Appellant also filed a civil suit for declaration of title, perpetual injunction, and possession, referencing the forged will. The trial court framed issues based on pleadings. Respondents filed an application u/s 10 read with Section 151, CPC, for staying the civil suit proceedings during the pendency of the criminal case, which was dismissed by the Additional District Judge. Respondents challenged this dismissal in the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution. The High Court stayed the civil suit proceedings till the decision of the criminal case, leading to the present appeal. The Supreme Court referred to the Constitution Bench decision in M.S. Sheriff v. State of Madras AIR 1954 SC 397, which stated that no hard and fast rule exists regarding staying civil or criminal proceedings. The possibility of conflicting decisions is not a relevant consideration; embarrassment to the accused is. The Court emphasized that criminal matters should generally be given precedence but noted exceptions based on specific case circumstances. In Karam Chand Ganga Prasad v. Union of India 1970 (3) SCC 694, it was observed that civil court decisions are binding on criminal courts, but the converse is not true. This principle was confined to the facts of that case in K.G. Premshanker v. Inspector of Police (2002) 8 SCC 87. In V.M. Shah v. State of Maharashtra (1995) 5 SCC 767, the Court held that civil court findings take precedence over criminal court findings in certain contexts. However, this was not considered good law in K.G. Premshanker. In State of Rajasthan v. Kalyan Sundaram Cement Industries (1996) 3 SCC 87, it was settled that criminal matters' pendency does not impede civil suits, and civil suits are rarely stayed for criminal cases. In K.G. Premshanker, the Court noted that judgments in civil proceedings are relevant if conditions of Sections 40 to 43 of the Evidence Act are satisfied but are not conclusive except as provided in Section 41. The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court was not justified in staying the civil suit proceedings. Conflicting decisions are not a relevant consideration, and there is no likelihood of embarrassment to the Respondents as they had already filed their written statement in the civil suit. The civil court's findings will not prejudice the Respondents' defense in the criminal proceedings. For the above reasons, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 24.11.2008 passed by the Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court is set aside. The proceedings in the civil suit shall now proceed further in accordance with law. The parties shall bear their own costs.
|
