9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (5) TMI 1004X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... grab his property. It was further alleged that based on the fabricated will, these Respondents had obtained a mutation order dated 24.11.1999 from the Tehsildar, Ajaygarh. On completion of investigation in the above F.I.R., the challan has been filed against the above Respondents and trial against them is going on in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ajaygarh, Panna (M.P.). 4. On 09.02.2004, the Appellant brought legal action in representative capacity against the Respondents Nos. 1 to 4 by way of a civil suit in the Court of District Judge, Panna (M.P.) praying for a decree for declaration of title, perpetual injunction and possession in respect of disputed lands and for annulling the sale deed dated 14.08.2003 and the mutation order dated 24.11.1999. In the suit, reference of will forged by the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 has been made. The said suit has been transferred to the Court of Additional District Judge, Panna and bears Civil Suit No. 10A of 2006. The Respondent Nos. 1 to 4, who are Defendants in the suit, have filed their written statement on 19.06.2006. The trial Court has framed issues on the basis of the pleadings of the parties on 21.09.2007. On 21.04.2008 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 Section 476. But in this case we are of the view that the civil suits should be stayed till the criminal proceedings have finished. 9. The ratio of the decision in M.S. Sheriff AIR 1954 SC 397 is that no hard and fast rule can be laid down as to which of the proceedings - civil or criminal - must be stayed. It was held that possibility of conflicting decisions in the civil and criminal courts cannot b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and neither the finding of the civil Court gets nor the decree becomes inoperative. 12. The statement of law in V.M. Shah (1995) 5 SCC 767, as quoted above, has been expressly held to be not a good law in K.G. Premshanker 2002) 8 SCC 87. 13. In State of Rajasthan v. Kalyan Sundaram Cement Industries Ltd. and Ors. (1996) 3 SCC 87, this Court made the following statement in paragraph 3 (pgs. 87-88): 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 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. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which it declares any person to be so entitled was the property of that person at the time from which such judgment, order or decree declares that it had been or should be his property. 17. Section 42 deals with relevancy and effect of judgments, orders or decrees, other than those mentioned in Section 41. It reads as under: Section 42. Relevancy and effect of judgments, orders or decrees, other than those mentioned in Section 41.- Judgments, orders or decrees other than those mentioned in Section 41, are relevant if they relate to matters of a public nature relevant to the enquiry; but such judgments, orders or decrees are not conclusive proof of that which they state. 18. Section 43 provides that the judgments, orders or decrees other than those mentioned in Sections 40, 41 and 42 are irrelevant unless the existence of such judgment, order or decree is a fact in issue or is relevant under some other provisions of the Evidence Act. 19. In K.G. Premshanker (2002) 8 SCC 87, the effect of the above provisions (Sections 40 to 43 of the Evidence Act) has been broadly noted thus: if the criminal case and civil proceedings are for the same cause, judgment of the civil Court would b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
