The limited application of judgments, orders, or decrees from previous civil proceedings and the non-binding nature of judgments/findings in criminal proceedings on civil proceedings.

ORDER :

R. Tharani, J.

1. This revision has been filed to call for the records and to set aside the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Rajapalayam, in Crl. M.P. No. 2043 of 2020 in C.C. No. 442 of 2016, dated 18.12.2020.

2. The revision petitioner is the defacto complainant and the respondents 1 and 2 are the accused in the case in C.C. No. 442 of 2016. The respondents 1 and 2 filed a discharge petition in Crl. M.P. No. 2043 of 2020, before the Judicial Magistrate, Rajapalayam, Virudhunagar District and that petition was allowed by the Judicial Magistrate. Against the same, the petitioner preferred this Revision.

3. On the side of the revision petitioner, it is stated that the petitioner lodged a private complaint in the year 2016 and the same was taken on file as C.C. No. 442 of 2016 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Rajapalayam. The respondents fabricated some documents regarding the property and they committed theft of fencing materials placed by the revision petitioner and the respondents scolded the revision petitioner in filthy language, hence, the petitioner filed a private complaint in C.C. No. 442 of 2016. Initially, the respondents filed a discharge petition in Cr. M.P. No. 11792 of 2018 and the same was dismissed on 04.12.2018. Against the same, the respondents filed a quash petition in Crl. O.P.(MD) No. 3010 of 2019 and that petition was dismissed by this court on 17.10.2019 and this Court has directed the trial Court to complete the trial, preferably, within a period of six months. Again, the respondents approached this Court by way of another quash petition, in Crl. O.P.(MD) No. 1273 of 2020 and the same was dismissed by this Court, in the admission stage itself, on 27.01.2020 and this Court again directed the trial Court to complete the trial within a period of six months. Suppressing all the earlier proceedings, the respondents filed another discharge petition in Crl. M.P. No. 2043 of 2020, before the Judicial Magistrate, Rajapalayam and that petition was allowed by the Magistrate. Hence, the second discharge petition, in Crl. M.P. No. 2043 of 2020, dated 18.12.2020, is liable to be set aside.

4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner relied upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K.G. Premshanker Vs. Inspector of Police and another reported in (2002) 8 SCC 87, wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows:

"Further, the judgment, order or decree passed in a previous civil proceeding, if relevant, as provided under Sections 40 and 42 or other provisions of the Evidence Act then in each case, Court has to decide to what extent it is binding or conclusive with regard to the matter(s) decided therein. Take for illustration, in a case of alleged trespass by 'A' on 'B's property, 'B' filed a suit for declaration of its title and to recover possession from 'A' and suit is decreed. Thereafter, in a criminal prosecution by 'B' against 'A' for trespass, judgment passed between the parties in civil proceedings would be relevant and Court may hold that it conclusively establishes the title as well as possession of 'B' over the property. In such case, 'A' may be convicted for trespass. The illustration to Section 42 which is quoted above makes the position clear. Hence, in each and every case, first question which would require consideration is whether judgment, order or decree is relevant?, if relevant its effect. It may be relevant for a limited purpose, such as, motive or as a fact in issue. This would depend upon facts of each case."

5. On the side of the revision petitioner, it is further stated that simultaneous civil and criminal proceedings by the creditors against the debtors, subsequent acquittal in a criminal proceedings would not make an abuse of process of law. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner relied upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vishnu Dutt Sharma Vs. Daya Sapra reported in (2009) 13 SCC 729, wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme