IMPORTANT POINT
Special considerations obtaining in any particular case might make some other course more expedient and just.

M.S. Sonak, J.—Heard Mr. Soni, learned counsel for the petitioner.

2. The petitioner husband challenges the order dated 4th June 2016 made by the Family Court, Pune rejecting the petitioner’s application under Section 10 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) to stay the proceedings, i.e., Petition No. 84 of 2012, in which, the respondent - wife, has applied for declaration that her marriage with the petitioner is null and void.

3. The petitioner, applied for stay of proceedings in the civil suit on the ground that the respondent wife has initiated criminal proceedings alleging that the petitioner has committed offences under sections 420, 406, 467, 471, 474, 376, 323, 504, 506(1) and 494 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and such proceedings are pending in the Sessions Court, Pune.

4. Mr. Soni, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that unless the civil proceedings are stayed, the petitioner, will face sever embarrassment in the criminal proceedings before the Sessions Court. Mr. Soni submits that complicated questions of law and fact are involved in both the matters and therefore, applying the law laid down by the Supreme Court in case of M.S. Sheriff and anr. v. State of Madras and ors. reported in AIR 1954 S.C. 397, the civil proceedings must be stayed. Mr. Soni submits that in criminal proceedings, the petitioner is not obliged to disclose his defence. If, the petitioner is obliged to disclose his defence in the civil proceedings, valuable constitutional rights available to the petitioner in the criminal proceedings will be denied to the petitioner.

5. Mr. Soni relies on the decisions of this Court in Arvind K. Wadodkar v. Ramdas D. Joshi reported in (1996) 2 MHLJ 907 and Ramanand N. Ladda v. Kacharulal A. Lodha reported in 1998 (2) MHLJ 112, to submit that if simultaneous prosecution of civil and criminal proceedings would embarrass the defendant, then civil suit is required to be stayed. Mr. Soni submits that since all such principles have been ignored by the Family Court, this is a clear case of failure to exercise jurisdiction. Mr. Soni submits that the impugned order therefore, warrants interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

6. In the present case, there is no clear material to establish that the civil proceedings and the criminal proceedings arise out of identical set of facts. No doubt, there is bound to be some overlap. But that by itself, is never sufficient to stay the civil proceedings. This is because scope of two proceedings is substantially different. The standard of proof required in the two proceedings are entirely different. Civil cases are decided on the basis of preponderance of probabilities while in criminal case, the prosecution is required to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. There is neither any statutory provision nor any legal principle that the findings recorded in one proceedings may be treated as final or binding in the other, as both the cases have to be decided on the basis of the evidence adduced therein. (See: Iqbal Singh Marwah v. Meenakshi Marwah, AIR 2005 Supreme Court 2119)

7. The record indicates that the charge-sheet in the criminal proceedings was served on the petitioner on 6th January 2016. Thereafter, on 28th January 2016, the petitioner has already filed his written statement in the civil proceedings, wherein, he has not only denied the allegations in the plaint/petition, but further disclosed his defence. In the civil proceedings, even issues came to be framed and the application seeking stay of the civil proceedings was moved by the petitioner at the stage when the respondent wife had concluded her examination in chief and the petitioner was called upon to cross-examine her, in case, he was desirous to do so. This is therefore, not a case where the petitioner is yet to disclose his defence or a case where disclosure of defence in the civil proceedings might affect the petitioner’s right to remain silent in the cr