The above decision relied upon by the counsel for the respondents is not applicable to the facts of this case since there is no question of embarrassment to the respondents by the trial of the civil suit before completing the trial in the criminal case. The fact that the respondents 1 to 4 have already filed their written statement of defence in the civil suit while the criminal case is pending against them on the very same subject matter, is not in dispute. Therefore, the premature disclosure of the defence of respondents 1 to 4 in the criminal case as stated by the lower court in the impugned order does not arise in this case since they have already disclosed their defence in the written statement filed by them in the suit. Therefore no question of stay of the civil suit on account of any embarrassment or compulsion to disclose the defence of respondents 1 to 4 in the criminal case before the trial of the criminal case, in the civil suit arises at all in this case.
2. The learned Munsiff after finding that the criminal case is pending against the same defendants on the same subject-matter in the suit and therefore, if the trial in the suit is proceeded with necessarily the defendants will be compelled and constrained to disclose their defence prematurely which will naturally prejudice them in the trial of the criminal case and therefore, it is not advisable to proceed with the suit pending trial of the criminal case. Hence the revision petition is preferred by the plaintiffs before this Court.
3. It is the common case that the subject-matter in the above suit and in the criminal case in which some of the defendants in the suit are facing trial before the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Koyilandy for the offences punishable under S. 83(c) of the Registration Act and Ss. 465, 467, 468, 205 and 419 r/w 34 of IPC, are the same. The respondents 1 to 4 herein moved the above application to stay the trial of the suit till the disposal of the criminal case pending against them contending that the trial of the civil suit will prejudice their defence in the criminal case since they will be forced to disclose their defence in the criminal case prematurely, if they are forced to stand trial in the suit before the disposal of the criminal case.
4. It is submitted by the counsel for the revision petitioners that respondents 1 to 4 have already filed their written statement in the suit and it is only thereafter they have filed the above petition to stay the trial of the suit till the disposal of the criminal case. Therefore, according to the petitioners, the contention of respondents 1 to 4 that the trial of the suit will prejudice their defence in the criminal case as they will have to prematurely disclose their defence in the suit, is absolutely untenable since they have raised all their contentions available in the suit in the written statement while the criminal case was pending against them and there is no question of any prejudice causing to them by the trial of the civil suit. Therefore, according to them, the lower court has committed manifest error of law and jurisdiction in staying the civil suit pending trial of the criminal case pending against them.
5. The counsel for the respondent submitted that the findings of the civil court will be binding upon the criminal court, if the suit is disposed of before the disposal of the criminal case. It is also submitted that the trial of the civil suit will take long time and the criminal case has to be disposed of expeditiously while the events and the facts and circumstances which led to the criminal case are fresh in the minds of the witnesses. Therefore, according to him, apart from the possibility of conflicting decisions by the civil and criminal courts, there is likelihood of embarrassment to the accused, if the trial in the civil suit is proceeded with before the disposal of the criminal case. Therefore, the counsel for the respondents submitted that it is only in the interests of justice to stay the civil suit till the disposal of the criminal case arising out of the very same set of facts.
6. The counsel for the respondents relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in M.S. Sheriff v. State of Madras (AIR 1954 SC 397) in support of the contention that the civil suit should be stayed till the disposal of the criminal case arising out of the same subject-matter. In that judgment the Supreme Court has observed as follows:
"(15) As between the civil and the criminal proceedings we are of the opinion that the criminal mattes 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 considerations. 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 weights with us is that 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 would 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 expedient 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".
7. Relying upon the fact that the Supreme court has stayed the civil suit till the disposal of the criminal case in the above ruling, the counsel for the respondents submitted that it is expedient to stay the civil suit in this case till the disposal of the criminal case and the lower court is perfectly justified in exercising its jurisdiction in staying the suit till the disposal of the criminal case.
8. The above decision relied upon by the counsel for the respondents is not applicable to the facts of this case since there is no question of embarrassment to the respondents by the trial of the civil suit before completing the trial in the criminal case. The fact that the respondents 1 to 4 have already filed their written statement of defence in the civil suit while the criminal case is pending against them on the very same subject matter, is not in dispute. Therefore, the premature disclosure of the defence of respondents 1 to 4 in the criminal case as stated by the lower court in the impugned order does not arise in this case since they have already disclosed their defence in the written statement filed by them in the suit. Therefore no question of stay of the civil suit on account of any embarrassment or compulsion to disclose the defence of respondents 1 to 4 in the criminal case before the trial of the criminal case, in the civil suit arises at all in this case.
9. In the decision in Ranganayakalu v. Gopala (AIR 1953 Madras 439) a single Judge of the Madras High Court has observed as follows:
"There is, therefore, now a consensus of judicial opinion that there is no invariable rule that a criminal proceeding should be stayed pending the issue of a civil suit, but that the matter is entirely one of discretion of the Court to be exercised having regard to the merits and all the circumstances of the case, the only general rule that can be adumbrated being that every court should be left as far as possible to dispose of the case on its file with the utmost expedition and the only general assumption that can be made is that in either Court justice will be done".
10. On the basis of the above observations made by the Madras High Court, the counsel for the respondents vehemently argued that the judicial discretion exercised by the lower court should not be interfered with by this Court lightly in the above revision petition preferred under S. 115 of the CPC.
11. The fact that the judicial discretion exercised by the lower court should not be lightly interfered by this Court in revision is well settled and admits of no doubt. But the question to be considered is whether the lower court has exercised its discretion in this case properly and judiciously while staying the civil suit pending the trial of the criminal case.
12. In the decision in Karamchand Ganga Prasad v. Union of India (AIR 1971 SC 1244) the Supreme Court has observed as follows:
"It is a well-settled principle of law that the decisions of the Civil Courts are binding on the Criminal Courts. the converse is not true."
13. In the decision in Apeejay Pvt. Ltd. v. Raghavachari Narasingham (1989 Crl.L.J. 2358) the Calcutta High Court has observed as follows:
"10. The decision, therefore, in a civil suit will have a binding effect inter se between the parties even before the Criminal Court, but not conversely. Mr. Sarkar submitted that at best the observations of the Supreme Court in Karamchand's case (1971 Crl.L.J. 1072) can be termed to be an obiter which does not have the same evidentiary value as that of a judgment. Assuming that the observations of the Supreme Court to be so, but it is now well-settled that the obiter dicta of the Supreme Court has also a binding effect on the High Court".
Therefore, the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in the decision in AIR 1971 SC 1244 that the decisions of the Civil Courts are biding on the Criminal Courts and not vice versa admits of no doubt. In the above decision the Calcutta High Court stayed the civil suit till the disposal of the criminal case since there was total identity of the subject matter in the earlier criminal proceedings and the civil suit instituted subsequently.
14. In the decision in Mathew v. Sony Cyriac (1995 (2) KLT 128) a single Judge of this Court has distinguished the above decision of the Calcutta High Court reported in 1989 Crl.L.J. 2358. The question that arose before this Court in the reported case in 1995 (2) KLT 128 was whether a civil suit filed by the drawee of a dishonoured cheque should be stayed till the disposal of the criminal proceedings initiated under S. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the drawer. This Court found that there is no need to stay the suit based on dishonoured cheque merely because prosecution has been initiated under S. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the defendants, negativing the contention that by compelling to file written statement in the suit, the defendants would be forced to disclose their defence and that would amount to violation of the fundamental rights under Art. 20(3) of the Constitution.
15. In the decision in State of Rajasthan v. Kalyan Sundaram Inds. Ltd. (1996 (2) KLT SN Case No. 11 at page 15) the Supreme Court has held as follows:
"Pendency of the criminal matters would not be an impediment to proceed with the civil suits. The criminal court would deal with offence punishable under the Act. On the other hand, the courts rarely stay the criminal cases and only when the compelling circumstances require be exercise of power. We have never come across say of any civil suits by the Courts so far".
In the above case also the Supreme Court was considering whether a civil suit for realisation of the amount due under the dishonoured cheque should be stayed pending disposal of the criminal case under S. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the against the defendant.
16. It is clear from the above rulings of this Court, the Madras High Court and the Supreme Court that in simultaneous prosecution of the defendant in the criminal case, the civil suit on the same subject matter an be stayed only under very exceptional and compelling circumstances. In this case absolutely no circumstance is made out by respondents 1 to 4 stay the civil suit instituted against them during the pendency of the criminal case and since they have filed their written statement in the civil suit, no question of any embarrassment or premature disclosure of their defence in the criminal case arises in this case. Therefore, the discretion exercised by the lower Court in staying the civil suit is highly improper and contrary to law which is liable to be interested by this court by exercising its jurisdiction under S. 115 of the C.P.C.
17. Hence the CRP is allowed. The impugned order in I.A. 984/2000 passed by the Munsiff's Court staying the civil suit is set aside.
Kerala High Court
Ramotty vs Gangadharan on 26 March, 2001
1. The plaintiffs in O.S.No.21/99 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Koyilandy are the revision petitioners. The order dated 5.7.2000 in I.A. 984/2000 is under challenge. That petition is filed by defendants 1 to 4 under S. 151 of the C.P.C to stay the suit till the disposal of the criminal case in C.C. No. 553/99 pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Koyilandy against them and others.2. The learned Munsiff after finding that the criminal case is pending against the same defendants on the same subject-matter in the suit and therefore, if the trial in the suit is proceeded with necessarily the defendants will be compelled and constrained to disclose their defence prematurely which will naturally prejudice them in the trial of the criminal case and therefore, it is not advisable to proceed with the suit pending trial of the criminal case. Hence the revision petition is preferred by the plaintiffs before this Court.
3. It is the common case that the subject-matter in the above suit and in the criminal case in which some of the defendants in the suit are facing trial before the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Koyilandy for the offences punishable under S. 83(c) of the Registration Act and Ss. 465, 467, 468, 205 and 419 r/w 34 of IPC, are the same. The respondents 1 to 4 herein moved the above application to stay the trial of the suit till the disposal of the criminal case pending against them contending that the trial of the civil suit will prejudice their defence in the criminal case since they will be forced to disclose their defence in the criminal case prematurely, if they are forced to stand trial in the suit before the disposal of the criminal case.
4. It is submitted by the counsel for the revision petitioners that respondents 1 to 4 have already filed their written statement in the suit and it is only thereafter they have filed the above petition to stay the trial of the suit till the disposal of the criminal case. Therefore, according to the petitioners, the contention of respondents 1 to 4 that the trial of the suit will prejudice their defence in the criminal case as they will have to prematurely disclose their defence in the suit, is absolutely untenable since they have raised all their contentions available in the suit in the written statement while the criminal case was pending against them and there is no question of any prejudice causing to them by the trial of the civil suit. Therefore, according to them, the lower court has committed manifest error of law and jurisdiction in staying the civil suit pending trial of the criminal case pending against them.
5. The counsel for the respondent submitted that the findings of the civil court will be binding upon the criminal court, if the suit is disposed of before the disposal of the criminal case. It is also submitted that the trial of the civil suit will take long time and the criminal case has to be disposed of expeditiously while the events and the facts and circumstances which led to the criminal case are fresh in the minds of the witnesses. Therefore, according to him, apart from the possibility of conflicting decisions by the civil and criminal courts, there is likelihood of embarrassment to the accused, if the trial in the civil suit is proceeded with before the disposal of the criminal case. Therefore, the counsel for the respondents submitted that it is only in the interests of justice to stay the civil suit till the disposal of the criminal case arising out of the very same set of facts.
6. The counsel for the respondents relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in M.S. Sheriff v. State of Madras (AIR 1954 SC 397) in support of the contention that the civil suit should be stayed till the disposal of the criminal case arising out of the same subject-matter. In that judgment the Supreme Court has observed as follows:
"(15) As between the civil and the criminal proceedings we are of the opinion that the criminal mattes 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 considerations. 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 weights with us is that 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 would 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 expedient 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".
7. Relying upon the fact that the Supreme court has stayed the civil suit till the disposal of the criminal case in the above ruling, the counsel for the respondents submitted that it is expedient to stay the civil suit in this case till the disposal of the criminal case and the lower court is perfectly justified in exercising its jurisdiction in staying the suit till the disposal of the criminal case.
8. The above decision relied upon by the counsel for the respondents is not applicable to the facts of this case since there is no question of embarrassment to the respondents by the trial of the civil suit before completing the trial in the criminal case. The fact that the respondents 1 to 4 have already filed their written statement of defence in the civil suit while the criminal case is pending against them on the very same subject matter, is not in dispute. Therefore, the premature disclosure of the defence of respondents 1 to 4 in the criminal case as stated by the lower court in the impugned order does not arise in this case since they have already disclosed their defence in the written statement filed by them in the suit. Therefore no question of stay of the civil suit on account of any embarrassment or compulsion to disclose the defence of respondents 1 to 4 in the criminal case before the trial of the criminal case, in the civil suit arises at all in this case.
9. In the decision in Ranganayakalu v. Gopala (AIR 1953 Madras 439) a single Judge of the Madras High Court has observed as follows:
"There is, therefore, now a consensus of judicial opinion that there is no invariable rule that a criminal proceeding should be stayed pending the issue of a civil suit, but that the matter is entirely one of discretion of the Court to be exercised having regard to the merits and all the circumstances of the case, the only general rule that can be adumbrated being that every court should be left as far as possible to dispose of the case on its file with the utmost expedition and the only general assumption that can be made is that in either Court justice will be done".
10. On the basis of the above observations made by the Madras High Court, the counsel for the respondents vehemently argued that the judicial discretion exercised by the lower court should not be interfered with by this Court lightly in the above revision petition preferred under S. 115 of the CPC.
11. The fact that the judicial discretion exercised by the lower court should not be lightly interfered by this Court in revision is well settled and admits of no doubt. But the question to be considered is whether the lower court has exercised its discretion in this case properly and judiciously while staying the civil suit pending the trial of the criminal case.
12. In the decision in Karamchand Ganga Prasad v. Union of India (AIR 1971 SC 1244) the Supreme Court has observed as follows:
"It is a well-settled principle of law that the decisions of the Civil Courts are binding on the Criminal Courts. the converse is not true."
13. In the decision in Apeejay Pvt. Ltd. v. Raghavachari Narasingham (1989 Crl.L.J. 2358) the Calcutta High Court has observed as follows:
"10. The decision, therefore, in a civil suit will have a binding effect inter se between the parties even before the Criminal Court, but not conversely. Mr. Sarkar submitted that at best the observations of the Supreme Court in Karamchand's case (1971 Crl.L.J. 1072) can be termed to be an obiter which does not have the same evidentiary value as that of a judgment. Assuming that the observations of the Supreme Court to be so, but it is now well-settled that the obiter dicta of the Supreme Court has also a binding effect on the High Court".
Therefore, the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in the decision in AIR 1971 SC 1244 that the decisions of the Civil Courts are biding on the Criminal Courts and not vice versa admits of no doubt. In the above decision the Calcutta High Court stayed the civil suit till the disposal of the criminal case since there was total identity of the subject matter in the earlier criminal proceedings and the civil suit instituted subsequently.
14. In the decision in Mathew v. Sony Cyriac (1995 (2) KLT 128) a single Judge of this Court has distinguished the above decision of the Calcutta High Court reported in 1989 Crl.L.J. 2358. The question that arose before this Court in the reported case in 1995 (2) KLT 128 was whether a civil suit filed by the drawee of a dishonoured cheque should be stayed till the disposal of the criminal proceedings initiated under S. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the drawer. This Court found that there is no need to stay the suit based on dishonoured cheque merely because prosecution has been initiated under S. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the defendants, negativing the contention that by compelling to file written statement in the suit, the defendants would be forced to disclose their defence and that would amount to violation of the fundamental rights under Art. 20(3) of the Constitution.
15. In the decision in State of Rajasthan v. Kalyan Sundaram Inds. Ltd. (1996 (2) KLT SN Case No. 11 at page 15) the Supreme Court has held as follows:
"Pendency of the criminal matters would not be an impediment to proceed with the civil suits. The criminal court would deal with offence punishable under the Act. On the other hand, the courts rarely stay the criminal cases and only when the compelling circumstances require be exercise of power. We have never come across say of any civil suits by the Courts so far".
In the above case also the Supreme Court was considering whether a civil suit for realisation of the amount due under the dishonoured cheque should be stayed pending disposal of the criminal case under S. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the against the defendant.
16. It is clear from the above rulings of this Court, the Madras High Court and the Supreme Court that in simultaneous prosecution of the defendant in the criminal case, the civil suit on the same subject matter an be stayed only under very exceptional and compelling circumstances. In this case absolutely no circumstance is made out by respondents 1 to 4 stay the civil suit instituted against them during the pendency of the criminal case and since they have filed their written statement in the civil suit, no question of any embarrassment or premature disclosure of their defence in the criminal case arises in this case. Therefore, the discretion exercised by the lower Court in staying the civil suit is highly improper and contrary to law which is liable to be interested by this court by exercising its jurisdiction under S. 115 of the C.P.C.
17. Hence the CRP is allowed. The impugned order in I.A. 984/2000 passed by the Munsiff's Court staying the civil suit is set aside.
No comments:
Post a Comment