SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2013 Supreme(SC) 426

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
R.M. LODHA AND SHARAD ARVIND BOBDE, JJ.
GURU GRANTH SAHEB STHAN MEERGHAT VANARAS - Appellant
VERSUS
VED PRAKASH & ORS. - Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 4166 of 2013 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 12644 of 2009)
Decided on 1-5-2013.

IMPORTANT POINT
Possibility of conflicting decisions in civil and criminal courts cannot be considered as a relevant consideration for stay of civil proceedings.

Headnote:Civil Procedure Code, 1908-Sections 10 and 151-Evidence Act, 1872-Sections 40 to 43-Stay of suit-Stay of proceedings in civil suit till decision in criminal case-Appellant brought legal action in representative capacity against respondents by way of a civil suit praying for a decree for declaration of title, perpetual injunction and possession in respect of disputed lands and for annulling sale deed-Possibility of conflicting decisions in civil and criminal courts cannot be considered as a relevant consideration for stay of proceedings as law envisaged such an eventuality-In facts of present case there is no likelihood of any embarrassment to defendants respondents as they had already filed written statement in civil suit and based on pleadings of parties issues have been framed-Outcome and/or findings that may be arrived at by civil court will not at all prejudice defence of respondents in criminal proceedings-Impugned order passed by High Court set aside-Proceedings in civil suit shall now proceed further in accordance with law. (Paras 4, 9, 20 and 21)

       Result: Appeal allowed.

       

Judgement Key Points

Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points regarding the stay of civil proceedings pending a criminal case:

  • The Supreme Court held that the possibility of conflicting decisions in civil and criminal courts cannot be considered a relevant consideration for staying civil proceedings, as the law envisages such an eventuality. (!) (!) (!) (!)
  • There is no hard and fast rule mandating that civil proceedings must be stayed until the disposal of a criminal case; the primary relevant consideration is the likelihood of embarrassment to the accused. (!) (!) (!)
  • In the specific facts of this case, the stay was unjustified because the defendants had already filed their written statement and issues had been framed, meaning there was no likelihood of embarrassment to them. (!)
  • Findings or outcomes arrived at by the civil court will not prejudice the defense of the respondents in the criminal proceedings. (!)
  • Sections 40 to 43 of the Evidence Act, 1872 govern the relevancy of judgments between civil and criminal courts, but a judgment in a criminal case is not conclusive proof unless it falls under specific categories like probate or insolvency jurisdiction. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
  • The High Court's order staying the civil suit was set aside, and the civil suit is directed to proceed further in accordance with the law. (!)

JUDGMENT

R.M. Lodha, J.:- Leave granted.

2. The short question for consideration in this appealby special leave is whether High Court was justified in staying the proceedings in civil suit till the decision in criminal case.

3. It is not necessary to narrate the facts in detail. Suffice it to say that the appellant filed an FIR (P.S. Case No. 8 of 2003) at Dharampura Police Station against respondent nos. 1 to 4 for commission of the offences under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 120B, IPC alleging that they had executed a false, forged and fabricated will on 02.07.1997 in the name of late Devkinandan Sahay with the intention to 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, the defendants (respondent nos. 1 to 4 herein) filed an application under Section 10 read with Section 151, CPC for staying the proceedings in the civil suit during the pendency of above- referred criminal case.

5. The Additional District Judge, Panna, by his order dated 21.04.2008 dismissed the application for staying the proceedings in the suit.

6. The respondent nos. 1 to 4 herein challenged the order of the Additional District Judge in the High Court in a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court by the impugned order has set aside the order of the Additional District Judge and, as noted above, has stayed the proceedings in Civil Suit till the decision of criminal case. It is from this order that the present civil appeal, by special leave, has arisen.

7. We have heard Mr. Nagendra Rai, learned senior counsel for the appellant, and Mr. K.G. Bhagat, learned counsel for respondent nos. 1 to 4.

8. A Constitution Bench of this Court in M.S. Sheriff & Anr. v. State of Madras & Ors.[ AIR 1954 SC 397] has considered the question of simultaneous prosecution of the criminal proceedings with the civil suit. In paragraphs 14,15 and 16 (Pg. 399) of the Report, this Court stated as follows:

“14. . . . . . . . It was said that the simultaneous prosecution of these matters will embarrass the accused. . . . . but we can see that the simultaneous prosecution of the present criminal proceedings out of which this appeal arises and the civil suits will embarrass the accused. We have therefore to determine which should be stayed.

15. As between the civil and the criminal proceedings we are of the opinion that the criminal matters 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 consideration. 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 pur






















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top