The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the doctrine of issue estoppel and the principle of issue estoppel in quasi-criminal proceedings, and the distinction between an enquiry and a trial under section 202 Cr.P.C.

1. - The instant application has been filed by the respondent - the returned candidate, under the provisions of O. VII R. 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, "the Code") on the ground that the election petition is barred by Section 300 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (for short, "Cr.P.C.") and, thus, liable to be rejected at the threshold.

2. Petitioner has filed the election petition alleging corrupt practices adopted by the respondent in the Rajasthan State Legislative Assembly Election (Makrana Constituency No. 196), wherein respondent was declared elected on 28.11.1998. The ground of challenge is based on an Appeal published on 24.11.1998, purporting to have been made by the petitioner, asking the voters to Vote & Support the respondent - returned candidate. The appeal /pamphlets so printed were distributed by the respondent and his agents at Sadar Bazar, Makrana at about 8.00 p.m. on 24.11.1998. Petitioner has urged that corrupt practices were adopted by respondent the returned candidate has materially affected the result of the election. Petitioner's case is that under Clause (4) of Section 123 (1) of the Representation of the. People Act, 1951, publication of any statement of fact by the candidate or his agent or by any other person with the consent of the candidate, which is false and which he either believes to be false or does not believe to be true in relation to a candidature or withdrawal of any candidate, being a statement reasonably calculated to prejudice the prospects of that candidate's election, amounts to corrupt practice. Declaration that respondent has adopted corrupt practices and the said practice was made to pursuade Muslim community not to vote in favour of the petitioner is sought with a further direction that election of the returned candidate be declared void and he be restrained from contesting the election in future after being declared disqualified with other reliefs also.

3. This application has been filed by the respondent on the ground that petitioner had filed a complaint on 24.11.1998 at about 9.30 p.m. with the Police Station, Makrana in respect of the same incident furnishing complete details thereof, i.e. printing of appeal and its circulation. Petitioner also filed a criminal complaint against the applicant alongwith 17 other persons under sections 419, 171 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. His complaint has been dismissed by the competent criminal Court after examining his witnesses vide order dated 17.8.1999, against which his "revision has also been rejected by the Court vide judgment and order dated 21.4.2001.

4. As the election petition is based on the ground of adopting corrupt practices, proceedings are quasi-criminal in nature, standard of proof is the same as is required in a criminal trial i.e. petitioner has to prove the case beyond reasonable manner of doubt and as the incident/ allegations of corrupt practice are the same which had been alleged in the criminal complaint and in the revision and the same stood dismissed, the election petition is not maintainable being barred by Clause (d) of R.11 of O. VII of the Code. In Madan Kanwar v. Surendra Kumar, 1971 RLW 133, this Court held that suit for recovery of wages was barred in view of specific provisions of the Payment of Wages Act and, therefore, the application under O. VII, R.11 of the Code ought to have been allowed by the trial Court rejecting the plaint on this ground alone. The Court also rejected the contention that in such a case, the Civil Court was under an obligation to return the plaint to file before the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act.

5. In Khubi Lal v. Power House Karamchari Grah Nirman Sahkari Samiti, Udaipur, 1973 RLW 228, this Court held that as the provisions of the Co-operative Societies Act clearly bar the institution of a suit against the Co-operative Society in respect of any act touching the Constitution, Management or Business of the society, until the e