Back
GAUHATI HIGH COURT
A.K.Patnaik, J.
Ajit Kumar Bhuyan -Appellant
Versus
Hiteswar Saikia -Respondent
Misc Case No. 108 of 1994 in Civil Revision No. 119 of 1994
Decided On : 02-09-1994
DEFAMATION - STAY OF CIVIL SUIT - CRIMINAL COMPLAINT - EMBARRASSMENT OR PREJUDICE - SECTION 499 IPC - SECTION 151 CPC - SECTION 10-B IPC - SECTION 500/501/502 IPC - AIR 1954 SC 397 - AIR 1979 GOA 37 - AIR 1962 PATNA 229 - AIR 1985 GAUHATI 55 - AIR 1962 SC 527 - AIR 1982 CALCUTTA 41 - MONEY SUIT NO. 293 OF 1992 - COMPLAINT CASE NO. LC/92 - CIVIL REVISION NO. 119 OF 1994 - MISE CASE NO. 11 OF 1994 - SUMMARY: The court held that the petitioners cannot be compelled to disclose their defense by filing a written statement in the civil suit until the evidence on behalf of the defense in the criminal trial is closed. The court relied on the principle that where there is a likelihood of embarrassment to the accused in the criminal proceeding, a civil suit against the accused should be stayed till the criminal proceeding is over.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, who were the defendants in a civil suit for defamation, filed a petition seeking a stay of the proceedings in the suit until the disposal of a criminal complaint case filed against them for the same defamatory statements. The petitioners argued that they would be prejudiced and embarrassed in the trial of the criminal case if they were required to disclose their defense by filing a written statement in the civil suit.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the petitioners had made out a prima facie case for a stay of the proceedings in the civil suit. The court found that the news item that was the subject of the defamation suit was also the basis for the criminal complaint against the petitioners, and that the defense in both cases would likely be the same. The court held that requiring the petitioners to file a written statement in the civil suit before the evidence on behalf of the defense in the criminal trial was closed would embarrass or prejudice them in the criminal trial.
Issues: Whether the civil suit for defamation should be stayed until the disposal of the criminal complaint case.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the principle that where there is a likelihood of embarrassment to the accused in the criminal proceeding, a civil suit against the accused should be stayed till the criminal proceeding is over. The court found that the petitioners would be embarrassed or prejudiced in the criminal trial if they were required to disclose their defense by filing a written statement in the civil suit before the evidence on behalf of the defense in the criminal trial was closed.
Final Decision: The court modified the interim order that had been passed staying the proceedings in the civil suit. The court held that the petitioners could not be compelled to file a written statement in the civil suit until the evidence on behalf of the defense in the criminal trial was closed. However, the court clarified that this order would not prevent the trial court or the appellate court from considering and passing orders on an application for temporary injunction, if any, filed in the suit.
2. The brief facts relevant for the purpose of this Mise Case are that the opposite party No. 1 filed Money Suit No. 293 of 1992 in the Court of learned Assistant District Judge, Gauhati against the two petitioners for damages of Rs. 1,00,000/- and for permanent injunction. In the said suit the case of the opposite party No. 1 is that the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 are the 'Editor' and the 'Publisher' respectively of the Assamese'Sadin' and the opposite party No. 2 is the proprietor of the said weekly. In the issues dated 28.8.92 and 4.9.92 of the said Assamese weekly, 'Sadin' some articles were published containing statements which are defamatory of the opposite party No. 1 and are calculated to lower the opposite party No. 1 who is the Chief Minister of the State of Assam in the estimation of right thinking men and expose him to hatred, contempt or ridicule. For such defamation the opposite party No. 1 has claimed Rs. 1,00,000/- as damages and has prayed for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from publishing any words to the like effect in future.
3. In respect of the publication of the very same article in the issue of 'Sadin' dated 28.8.92. a Criminal Complaint Case No. lc/92 has also been filed against the petitioners by Public Prosecutor with the sanction of the Government of Assam in the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Gauhati and as par the said complaint case, the news item published in the 'Sadin' dated 28.8.92 contains defamatory statements concerning the integrity of the Chief Minuter of Assam and the Managing Director of Assam Industrial Development Corporation and the petitioners are guilty of offences punishable under section 1 0-B of IPC read with sections 500/501/502 of the IPC.
4. In the back ground of the aforesaid facts the petitioners filed a petition No. 4813/93 in the Court of the learned Assistant District Judge, Gauhati trying the Money Suit No. 293 of 1992 praying for stay of the said money suit pending disposal of the Criminal Complaint Case No. lc/92. To the said petition the opposite party No. 1 filed his objection before the learned Assistant District Judge No. 1, Gauhati and by order dated 20.12.93 the learned Assistant District Judge No. 2 held after due consideration that it was incumbent on the defendants petitioners to let the Court know their defence in the suit by filing the written statement, before the Court can grant relief under section 151 CPC.
5. Aggtieved by the said order dated 20.12,93 of the learned Assistant District Judge. No. 2, the defendants-petitioners have filed the present Civil Revision No. 119 of 1994 and notice of the said civil revision was issued on 4.4.94 making it returnable by 12.4.94 and on 12.4.94 this Court passed orders for waiting service of notice for 2 weeks and directing as an interim measure that further proceedings in Money Suit No, 293 of 1992 pending in the Court of the learned Assistant District Judge No. 1, Gauhati shall be stayed.
6. Mr. AS Bhattacharjee, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 1, submitted that the said interim order dated 12.4.94 staying further proceedings in Money Suit No. 293 of 1992 in the Court of learned Assistant District Judge No. 1, Gauhati was passed exparte. He submitted that Money Suit No 293 of 1992 was filed by the opposite party No. 1 before the complaint case No. lc/92 was instituted. He further stated that the said complaint case has not been filed by the opposite party No. 1, but by the Public Prosecutor. Mr. Bhattacharjee also submitted that defamation is regarded both as a civil injury and a criminal offence. For the civil injury committed by the petitioners, the opposite party No. 1 has filed the af
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
