Back
2009(5) Supreme 258
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S.B. Sinha and Dr. Mukundakam Sharma, JJ.
Sh. Vishnu Dutt Sharma — Appellant
versus
Smt. Daya Sapra — Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 3238 of 2009
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 10997 of 2008)
Decided on : 05-05-2009
(b) Judicial Review – Criminal and civil proceedings can run parallel – However, standard of proof in both proceedings are different. (Para 11)
(c) Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – Sections 118(a) and 139 – Upon discharge of initial burden by the complainant, the burden of proof may shift on an accused – Court must, however, apply the principles of ‘presumption of innocence as a human right’ in doing so – Statutory provisions containing the doctrine of reverse burden must therefore be construed strictly. (Para 16)
2008 (1) SCALE 421; (1999) 3 SCC 35; 2008 (9) SCALE 68 – Relied upon.
(d) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Section 9 and Order VII, Rule 11(d) – A person can maintain a civil suit unless cognizance whereof is barred expressly or by necessary implication – A suit cannot be held to be barred only because the principle of estoppel may be applied. (Paras 20 and 23)
(e) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 40 – Provision would be applicable if the suit is barred by principles of res judicata – Judgment of a criminal court in a civil proceeding will only have limited application. (Paras 24 and 25)
2009 (5) SCALE 527 – Relied upon.
(f) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 43 – Finding in a criminal proceeding would not be binding in a civil proceeding. (Paras 26 and 29)
AIR 1954 SC 397; (2002) 8 SCC 87; (1970) 3 SCC 694; (2005) 4 SCC 370; AIR 2008 SC 1884 – Relied upon.
Facts of the case :
1. The effect of a judgment passed in a criminal proceeding on a pending civil proceeding is the question involved in this appeal.
2. A complaint petition was filed by the appellant against the respondent for alleged commission of offences under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code on 29-01-2000. He also filed a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 2,04,000/- in the Court of Senior Civil Judge.
3. Both in the criminal as also in the civil proceedings the defence raised by the respondent was that she had not taken any loan from the appellant as alleged or at all. It was furthermore asserted that the cheque issued by her was not in respect of repayment of any loan, since no such loan had been taken.
4. By reason of the Judgment dated 26-09-2003, the learned Sessions Judge recorded a judgment of acquittal in favour of the respondent holding that he had successfully proved that the cheque in question was not issued to the complainant by way of repayment of any loan.
5. Respondent thereafter during the pendency of the trial suit filed an application in the said civil suit purported to be under Order 7 Rule 11 (d) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for rejection of the plaint on the ground that the criminal complaint had already been dismissed.
6. The learned Civil Judge dismissed the said application inter alia opining that the findings of a criminal court in the proceeding under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act would not operate as ‘res judicata’ in the civil suit for recovery of money as the nature of proceeding in both the cases was different.
7. By reason of the impugned Judgment the High Court allowed the writ petition thereagainst. The High Court in arriving at its finding applied the principles of res judicata.
Finding of the Court :
Principles of res judicata are not applicable in the facts and circumstances of this case.
Result : Appeal allowed.
Key Points: - Finding in a criminal proceeding is not binding in a civil proceeding and does not operate as res judicata (!) (!) . - Criminal and civil proceedings can run parallel; standards of proof differ, with civil cases on preponderance of evidence and criminal cases beyond reasonable doubt (!) (!) . - Principles of res judicata are not applicable between criminal and civil cases except as expressly provided by law (!) (!) . - A civil suit cannot be barred solely because a related criminal case resulted in acquittal (!) (!) . - Judgments from criminal courts have limited relevance in civil proceedings, only for specific purposes such as identifying parties or outcomes (!) (!) .
JUDGMENT
S.B. Sinha, J.—
1. Leave granted.
2. The effect of a judgment passed in a criminal proceeding on a pending civil proceeding is the question involved herein. It arises in the following factual matrix.
Respondent borrowed a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Fifty Thousand Only) from the appellant herein on or about 10th August, 1999. On a demand having been made in that regard by the appellant, the respondent issued a cheque for the aforementioned sum on or about 20th October, 1999. The said cheque was presented by the appellant to the Oriental Bank of Commerce, Shahdra, Delhi, but the cheque was received back by the appellant with remarks ‘insufficient funds’.
3. A complaint petition was filed by the appellant against the respondent for alleged commission of offences under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code on 29-01-2000. He also filed a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 2,04,000/- on 19-10-2002 in the Court of Senior Civil Judge at Delhi which was marked as Suit No. 253 of 2003.
Both in the criminal as also in the civil proceedings the defence raised by the respondent was that she had not taken any loan from the appellant as alleged or at all. It was furthermore asserted that the cheque issued by her was not in respect of repayment of any loan, since no such loan had been taken.
Respondent urged that the appellant had met her husband who was a property dealer in connection with some business who made a representation that pertaining to the same deal the police had to be bribed, whereafter on 10-08-1999 the appellant accompanied by one Ms. Malhotra, retired ACP and his son came to the office of her husband and forcibly took the cheque in question from her husband since the cheque book was with him.
4. By reason of the Judgment dated 26-09-2003, the learned Sessions Judge recorded a judgment of acquittal in favour of the respondent holding that he had successfully proved that the cheque in question was not issued to the complainant by way of repayment of any loan.
5. Respondent thereafter during the pendency of the trial suit filed an application in the said civil suit purported to be under Order 7 Rule 11 (d) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for rejection of the plaint on the ground that the criminal complaint had already been dismissed. The learned Civil Judge dismissed the said application inter alia opining that the findings of a criminal court in the proceeding under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act would not operate as ‘res judicata’ in the civil suit for recovery of money as the nature of proceeding in both the cases was different.
6. Respondent approached the High Court in a writ petition questioning the order of dismissal of the said application and praying inter alia for the following reliefs:
“(a) To set aside and quash the impugned order dated 17.3.2007 passed by the Hon’ble Court of Shri Shailender Malik, Civil Judge, Delhi in Suit No. 356/06/02 titled as “Vishnu Dutt Sharma Vs. Daya Sapra; and
(2) Pass such other further orders as this Hon’ble Court deems just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the matter.”
7. By reason of the impugned Judgment the High Court allowed the said writ petition. The High Court in arriving at its finding applied the principles of res-judicata. It also opined that the suit filed by the appellant was nothing but an abuse of the process of law.
8. Mr. J.M. Kalia, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant would contend that the High Court committed a serious error in passing the impugned judgment in so far as it failed to take into consideration that the principle of res-judicata is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case.
9. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, on the other hand, would urge that having regard to the fact that both in the civil as also in the criminal proceeding, the burden was on the defendant-accused and he having su
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
