Back
2017 Supreme(Pat) 1088
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PATNA
MOHIT KUMAR SHAH, J.
Kumar Neeraj - Petitioner
Vs.
State of Bihar - Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 22077 of 2014
Decided On : 06-09-2017
For the Petitioners: Mr. Chittaranjan Sinha, Mr. Ranjit Kumar, Singh, Ms. Surya Nilambari
For the Respondents: Mr. Birendra Kumar, Mr. Jitendra Kumar Singh-1, Mr. Kanhaiya Kishor
Headnote:
(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 482 – Exercise of inherent jurisdiction – There is no bar to continuance of criminal proceedings during pendency of civil proceedings – Standard of proof is different in civil and criminal cases – In civil cases it is preponderance of probabilities while in criminal cases it is proof beyond reasonable doubt – There is neither any statutory nor any legal principle that findings recorded by court either in civil or criminal proceedings shall be binding between same parties while dealing with same subject matter and both cases have to be decided on the basis of evidence adduced therein – Civil proceedings and criminal proceedings are to be decided on the basis of evidence which may be brought on record by parties in respective proceedings – Criminal cases have to be proceeded with in accordance with procedure as prescribed under Code of Criminal Procedure and pendency of civil action before a civil court cannot be made basis for quashing of proceedings. (Paras 12, 13 and 14)
(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 210 – Stay of criminal case – Possibility of conflicting decisions in civil and criminal courts cannot be considered as a relevant consideration for stay of any one of two proceedings – Proposition of law that criminal proceedings should be quashed since civil suit is pending wherein veracity of forged documents, which is subject matter of criminal proceedings, is under test, hence criminal proceedings cannot be proceeded with, answered in negative. (Para 12)
Mohit Kumar Shah, J.
The present proceedings arise out of Complaint Case No. 3101 of 2013 and Complaint Case No. 3102 of 2013, filed by the complainants, namely, Renuka Prasad and Rambha Devi, respectively, both sisters, against the petitioners herein.
2. The subject matter of both the complaint cases are absolutely identical though the first complaint has been filed by Renuka Prasad and the second complaint has been filed by Rambha Devi. Since the present cases i.e. Criminal Miscellaneous No. 22489 of 2014 (arising out of Complaint Case No. 3101 of 2013), and Criminal Miscellaneous No. 22077 of 2014 (arising out of Complaint Case No. 3102 of 2013), pertain to identical allegations, the challenge being also to the identical orders dated 04.03.2014 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Katihar and the petitioners being also common, both the cases have been heard together with the consent of the parties and a common judgment is being passed.
3. The short facts of the case are that the opposite party no. 2-the complainants herein, namely, Rambha Devi and Renuka Prasad filed Complaint Case No. 3102 of 2013 and Complaint Case No. 3101 of 2013 respectively, before the learned Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Katihar against the petitioners herein, inter alia alleging therein that the complainant and the accused persons are related to each other and when they received notice of Title Suit No. 259 of 2013, it transpired that the accused persons had prepared some forged documents and the same was appended to the plaint of the Title Suit. The learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Katihar by an order dated 04.03.2014 passed in Complaint Case No. 3102 of 2013 and in Complaint Case No. 3101 of 2013, has been pleased to find out that a prima facie case is made out under Sections 419, 420, 465, 385 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code against all accused persons i.e. the petitioners herein and has, accordingly, summoned them.
4. The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners has assailed the aforesaid order dated 04.03.2014, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Katihar, only on the sole ground that the complainant cannot be permitted to institute a criminal prosecution on the allegation that some documents produced by the accused persons in the civil suit are forged since the subject matter of the criminal prosecution i.e. the veracity of the documents in question is already under test before a Civil Court. The learned senior counsel has relied upon judgments reported in 1987 (supp) SCC 146 (Sardool Singh & Anr. v. Smt. Nasib Kaur), the one reported in AIR 1971 SC 1244 (M/s. Karam Chand Ganga Prasad & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.) and the one reported in AIR 2006 SC 1748 (Narinder Mohan Arya v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd). The learned senior counsel has further referred to a judgment reported in 2004 (1) SCC 438 to contend that a decision by a criminal court does not bind the civil court while a decision by a civil court binds the criminal court. Alternatively, it has been contended by the learned senior counsel that the criminal proceeding be stayed till the decision is rendered in the pending civil suit and for the said proposition of law, he has relied upon two judgments reported in 1994 Cri.L.J. NOC 212 (Punjab & Haryana) (State of Haryana v. Shamlal) and 1996 (Cri.L.J.) 4390 (Punjab & Haryana) (Bhagwant Singh v. State of Punjab & ors). No other argument has been advanced on behalf of the petitioners.
5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 has contended that a bare reading of the complaint petition would show that a prima facie case is made out as against the petitioners herein and the allegations levelled in the complaint petition definitely discloses commission of cognizable offence. The learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 has relied upon cases reported in 2001 Cri.L.J. 4733 : (2002) 1 SCC 555 (Kamaladevi Agarwal v. State of West Bengal & ors.), 2015(
