important Point
Filing of an independent criminal proceeding, although initiated in terms of some observations made by the civil court, is not barred under any statute.

Headnote:(a)Judicial Review – Jurisdiction – The High Court being the final court of fact 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. (Para 12)
       (b)Judicial Review – 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. (Para 13)
       AIR 1954 SC 397; (2005) 4 SCC 370; (2005) 12 SCC 226 – Relied upon.
       (c)Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 195(1)(b)(ii) – Trite that Section 195(1)(b)(ii) would not be attracted where a forged document has been filed – Filing of an independent criminal proceeding, although initiated in terms of some observations made by the civil court, is not barred under any statute – High Court erred in staying the criminal proceeding. (Paras 14 to 16)
       (2005) 4 SCC 370 – Relied upon.
       (2004) 13 SCC 421 – Distinguished impliedly.
       Facts of the case:
       1.Appellant is the owner of a cinema theatre. An agreement of sale was entered into by and between the parties hereto in respect of the said property for a consideration of Rs. 64 lakhs. Respondent made part payment of Rs. 32,97,000/- of the said amount. A suit for specific performance of the contract was filed as no deed of sale was executed in terms of the said agreement.
       2. During hearing of the said suit, a receipt was filed showing payment of a sum of Rs. 4,03,000/- to the appellant herein on the basis of which possession of the theatre was obtained by the respondent.
       3. Appellant lodged a First Information Report, which was marked as Crime No. 79 of 2006, alleging that the said receipt was a fabricated document.
       3.The Trial Judge, however, dismissed the said suit.
       4. Respondent, however, preferred an appeal against the said judgment and decree. A Division Bench of the High Court granted a conditional stay.
       5. Respondent filed Miscellaneous Petition in the said appeal for modification of the order which was allowed.
       6. By another order dated 17.07.2006, the High Court stayed the proceedings in Crime No. 79 of 2006.
       Findings of the Court :
       High Court erred in staying the criminal proceeding.
       Result : Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 15670 of 2006 allowed and Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 16215 of 2006 dismissed. Mater remitted back to High Court.

Judgement Key Points

Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:

Judicial Review and Jurisdiction: The High Court, being the final court of fact, has the authority to review the correctness of findings made by the Trial Judge and can set aside those findings. (!)
Simultaneous Proceedings: It is well-settled that civil and criminal proceedings can proceed simultaneously; whether to stay one depends on the specific facts and circumstances of the case. (!)
Section 195(1)(b)(ii) CrPC Applicability: Section 195(1)(b)(ii) of the Code of Criminal Procedure does not apply where a forged document is filed, as an enlarged interpretation would lead to misuse and delay prosecution. (!) (!) (!) (!)
Standard of Proof: There is no legal principle that findings in civil proceedings are binding on criminal courts; the standards of proof differ, with civil cases requiring a preponderance of evidence and criminal cases requiring proof beyond reasonable doubt. (!) (!)
Scope of Section 195(1)(b)(ii): This section is attracted only when an offence is committed with respect to a document after it has been produced or given in evidence in a court proceeding (i.e., while in

judgment

S.B. Sinha, J. —

1. Leave granted.

2.Appellant is the owner of a cinema theatre. An agreement of sale dated 28.03.2001 was entered into by and between the parties hereto in respect of the said property for a consideration of Rs. 64 lakhs. Respondent made part payment of Rs. 32,97,000/- of the said amount. A suit for specific performance of the contract was filed as no deed of sale was executed in terms of the said agreement dated 28.03.2001.

3. During hearing of the said suit, a receipt was filed showing payment of a sum of Rs. 4,03,000/- to the appellant herein. The said receipt was marked as Exhibit A.15. On the said basis, allegedly, possession of the theatre was obtained by the respondent. The learned Trial Judge, however, dismissed the said suit by an order dated 29.04.2006 inter alia opining :

“45.Therefore, in the circumstances I find that there is no evidence produced by the plaintiff which is sufficient to outweigh the opinion and the evidence of D.W.4. Further it is to be seen that though after execution of Ex. A.15 he came to know about huge debts by defendant under the said mortgage deeds, taxes dues and other statutory liabilities and that defendant were not cooperating and adopted evasive attitude in clearing the debts, dues and other liabilities and were not allowing him to discharge the mortgage debt to the Union Bank of India, he kept quite till filing of the suit, without even issuing a notice to the defendant. Even if he was in possession as claimed by him with effect from the date of Ex.A.15, in view of the huge debts and liabilities, which to his knowledge the defendant was not in a position to discharge and not making any efforts to discharge the same he would not have kept quite in the normal circumstances without issuing any notice to the defendant. Thus there is no mention about this Ex.A.15 dated 18.09.2002 in the written form anywhere till he filed the plaint on 05.12.2002. Therefore, these circumstances also render the oral evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 highly doubtful on this aspect. Therefore, in these circumstances I find that the evidence of D.W.4 and the contents of Ex.C.4 opinion and Ex.C.5 reasons for opinion are sufficient to prove that the signature of D.W.1 is forged in Ex.A.15. Therefore in the circumstances it shall be held that the contention of the plaintiff and the evidence of P.W.1 that on 18.09.2002 he paid Rs. 4,03,000/- towards part of sale consideration and D.W.1 delivered possession of plaint schedule theater to him is not true. Therefore, in the circumstances it also shall be held that the plaintiff failed to prove that he came into possession of the plaint schedule property in pursuance of the part performance of the contract covered by Ex.A.4.”

It was furthermore opined :

“Therefore, following this decision of the Honourable High Court of Andhra Pradesh it shall be held that the plaintiff, since failed to prove that he paid Rs. 4,03,000/- towards part payment of sale consideration of D.W.1 and she delivered possession of plaint schedule to him on 18.09.2002 and passed Ex.A.15 receipt. It shall be held that though the time is not the essence of the contract and the plaintiff is justified in not making further remaining part of sale consideration by 31.12.2001, since he approached the court with unclean hands he cannot be granted a decree for specific performance. Since it is a specific case that he came into possession of plaint schedule property in part performance of Ex. A.4 agreement of sale, on 18.09.2002 under Ex. A.15 and failed to prove the same, it is irrelevant and not necessary to decide how he came into possession of the plaint schedule property. Therefore, in the circumstances he is also not entitled for protection under section 53-A of Transfer of Property Act and hence is not entitled to seek perpetual injunction.”

4. Appellant, in view of the said observations, lodged a First Information Report, which was marked as Crime No. 79 of 2006, in the Kadapa Police Stati

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2008 Supreme(SC) 406

2008(2) Supreme 445Supreme Court of india(From Andhra Pradesh High Court)S.B. Sinha & V.S. Sirpurkar, JJ.P. Swaroopa Rani — PetitionerversusM. Hari Narayana @ Hari Babu — RespondentAppeal (civil) 1734 of 2008[Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 15670 of 2006]Decided on : 04-03-2008

important PointFiling of an independent criminal proceeding, although initiated in terms of some observations made by the civil court, is not barred under any statute.

Cases Referred (3)

2008(2) Supreme 445
Supreme Court of india
(From Andhra Pradesh High Court)
S.B. Sinha & V.S. Sirpurkar, JJ.
P. Swaroopa Rani — Petitioner
versus
M. Hari Narayana @ Hari Babu — Respondent
Appeal (civil) 1734 of 2008
[Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 15670 of 2006]
Decided on : 04-03-2008

important Point
Filing of an independent criminal proceeding, although initiated in terms of some observations made by the civil court, is not barred under any statute.