Back
2019 Supreme(Raj) 2876
IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J.
Sweety Bafana - Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan - Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 3100 of 2018
Decided On : 13-03-2019
C.S. Kotwani, Adv., Mukhtiyar Khan, Adv., Manisha Surana, Adv.
The pendency of a civil suit does not bar criminal proceedings for the same dispute if the criminal offense is distinct from the civil dispute.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, 1973 - SECTION 239, 216 - DISCHARGE OF ACCUSED - APPLICATION FOR - REJECTION - VALIDITY - CIVIL SUIT PENDING - EFFECT - CRIMINAL TRIAL - ABUSE OF PROCESS OF LAW.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners challenged the rejection of their application under Section 239 read with Section 216 Cr.P.C. for discharge in a criminal case alleging impersonation and forgery of signatures in a land sale transaction. They argued that a civil suit was ongoing between the parties and that simultaneous criminal proceedings amounted to an abuse of process.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the civil suit pertained to the sale deed and the rights of the complainant, but it would not adjudicate the criminal offense committed by the petitioners in impersonating the complainant and another person to execute the power of attorney.
Issues: Whether the pendency of a civil suit bars criminal proceedings for the same dispute.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on precedents holding that criminal prosecution can continue even when a civil suit is pending, as the civil court cannot determine the criminal offense committed by the petitioners. The court distinguished the civil dispute regarding ownership from the criminal allegations of impersonation and forgery.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition, holding that the impugned order rejecting the discharge application was justified and that no interference was warranted.
JUDGMENT
Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J. -The petitioners have preferred this criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. against the order dated 04.08.2018 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Merta in Criminal Original Case No.416/2016 (Old 11/2012) State Vs. Bidam Kanwar, whereby application preferred by petitioners under Section 239 read with Section 216 Cr.P.C. has been rejected.
2. The petitioners, in this petition, are challenging the validity and propriety of the order dated 04.08.2018 whereby the application preferred by the petitioners under Section 239 read with Section 216 Cr.P.C. for discharging them, has been rejected by the learned court below.
3. Brief facts of the case, as noticed by this Court are that the allegation levelled by respondent No.2-complainant, Smt. Manju Surana, against the petitioners was that at Revenue Village Raghunathpura, grandfather of the complainant was having 100 Bighas 2 Biswa land. The allegation was that complainant's grandfather expired way back in the year 1971, and thereafter, one Ramniwas Bhanwaria, got a power of attorney executed on 19.09.2008 from Mahaveer Raj and Bidam Kanwar. It was further alleged that in place of complainant- Smt. Manju Surana and her sister Sunita, the persons who signed and impersonated them were Smt. Chanchal Devi and Smt. Sweety, who are the petitioners. The land in question was thereafter, sold on 13.05.2009 on the basis of the said impersonated signatures. The mutation entry is also said to have been done.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that a civil suit is going on between the parties, and thus, since two simultaneous proceedings were launched, therefore, the present petition needs to be allowed.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the judgment rendered by this Hon'ble Court in Dhanna Ram & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. (S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.306/2011) decided on 03.05.2013, whereby this Hon'ble Court has held that if the dispute in question has already been decided by the civil court, then the criminal trial on the same issue would be nothing but an abuse of the process of law.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners has further placed reliance on the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Joseph Salvaraj A. Vs. State of Gujarat and Others, (2011) 7 SCC 59 , whereby the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that rigmarole of criminal prosecution cannot be continued even when admittedly a civil suit regarding the same dispute is being adjudicated.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also relied upon the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in M/s. Pepsi Foods Ltd. and another Vs. Special Judicial Magistrate and others., (1997) AIRSCW 4084 , in which the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that since the allegations are not backed up with record, therefore, the criminal trial cannot go on.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also placed reliance on the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Paramjeet Batra Vs. State of Uttarakhand & Ors., (2013) CrLR 67 (SC) , whereby the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that the issues which could be taken care of by the pending civil suit, should not result in the criminal trial.
9. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand, submits that the power of attorney for Smt. Manju Surana and Sunita was signed by the present petitioners Smt. Chanchal Devi and Smt. Sweety Bafna respectively on 19.09.2008.
10. Learned counsel for the respondent however, submits that in lieu of this challenged power of attorney, sale deed was executed on 13.05.2009, and when it came to the knowledge of the respondent, she immediately filed an FIR bearing No.129/2009 on 09.08.2009.
11. Learned counsel for the respondent further submits that after thorough investigation, challan has been filed in the year 2012 and charges were framed on 20.11.2015.
12. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the present application has been filed with gross delay
