SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2009 Supreme(Online)(KER) 7887

HIGH COURT OF KERALA
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J
KARUNAKARAN – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
Crl.MC/463/2009



Advocates:
MR.P.N.PURUSHOTHAMA KAIMAL, SMT.V.SHYLAJA, MR.ANILKUMAR.K.N.PILLAI, MR.P.JAYAKRISHNA KAIMAL

Civil court judgments are not binding on criminal courts unless specified under the Evidence Act.

Headnote:

Criminal - IPC - Sections 465, 467, 471, 34, CrPC - Section 482 - The court discussed how the binding nature of civil court judgments on criminal proceedings is limited, reiterating that a civil judgment is not conclusive in criminal matters unless specific evidence act provisions are met.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners, accused in a criminal case, contended that a parallel civil suit concerning the same forgery dispute should lead to the quashing of criminal proceedings.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the existence of a parallel civil proceeding does not quash criminal charges unless a civil judgment meets specific conditions under the Evidence Act, which was not the case here.

Issues: Whether ongoing civil proceedings can be grounds for quashing criminal charges relating to the same issue.

Ratio Decidendi: The court established that findings of a civil court are not binding on a criminal court and that criminal proceedings can continue irrespective of the civil suit outcomes.

Final Decision: The petition to quash the criminal proceedings was dismissed.

ORDER

Petitioners are the accused in C.C.No.716/2008 on the file of Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court, Alappuzha. Learned Magistrate took cognizance for offences under Sections 465, 467, 511 of 468 and 471 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code on Annexure-A4 complaint filed by the second respondent. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure contending that in respect of the same dispute, O.S.No.98/2006 instituted by the first petitioner before Sub Court, Cherthala under Annexure-A3 is pending and the question whether Annexure-A1 is a forged document or is a genuine one is to be decided in O.S.No.98/2006 and Annexure-A4 complaint is filed to get over the decree to be passed in O.S.No. 98/2006 without any bona fides and it is only an abuse of process of the court and is to be quashed.

CRMC 463/09 2

2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and second respondent were heard.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners vehemently argued that the question to be decided in Annexure-A4 private complaint is whether Annexure-A1 promissory note is a fabricated and forged document created by petitioners as alleged by the second respondent or is a genuine one executed for consideration and that exactly is the case to be settled in O.S.No.98/2006 and when the civil court is deciding that question and judgment of the civil court is binding on the criminal court, criminal proceedings is to be quashed.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the second respondent, relying on the decision of the Apex Court inK.G.Premshanker v. Inspector of Police ( (2002) 8 SCC 87 ) argued that it is not the law that judgment of the civil court is binding on the criminal court and unless judgment of the civil court comes within the ambit of Sections 40 to 43 CRMC 463/09 3 of Evidence Act, judgment is not even relevant and it is not binding on the criminal court and therefore, civil court is also considering the same question is not a ground to quash the proceedings. Learned counsel pointed out that ingredients of an offence is made out in Annexure-A4 complaint and therefore, the complaint cannot be quashed.

5. If the allegations in Annexure-A4 complaint are to be accepted, then, it cannot be said that ingredients of an offence, taken cognizance of by the Magistrate, is not made out. If so, complaint cannot be quashed as sought for by the petitioners.

6. The question then is whether existence of a parallel civil proceedings is a ground to quash the criminal proceedings. If the finding of the civil court that will be rendered in O.S.No.98/2006 is binding on the criminal court, it could have been said that there is no necessity to proceed with the criminal proceedings, when the same matter is being decided by the civil court. As rightly pointed out CRMC 463/09 4 by the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent, the law is not as canvassed by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. Though inV.M.Shah v. State of Maharashtra ( (1995) 5 SCC 767 ), Apex Court had earlier held that findings recorded by the criminal court stand superseded by the findings recorded by the civil court and inKaram Chand Ganga Prasad v. Union of India ( (1970) 3 SCC 694 ), it was held that it is the well established principle of law that decisions of the civil courts are binding on the criminal courts. A three Judge Bench of the Apex Court inPremshanker's case (supra) held that observations made inShah's case (supra) and Karam Chand Ganga Prasad's case (supra) are not the correct enunciation of law and previous judgment, which is final, can be relied upon only as provided under sections 40 to 43 of Evidence Act and in civil suits between the same parties, principles of res judicata may apply and in a criminal case CRMC 463/09 5 Section 300 of Code of Criminal Procedure makes the provision that once a person is convicted or acquitted, he may not be tried again for the same offence, if the conditions mentioned therein are satisfied. If the c

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top