Crl.Rev.No.1016 of 2006 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Criminal Revision No.1016 of 2006 Date of Decision: 18 - 3 - 2009 Lal Chand .....Petitioner v. Deep Chand and another .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA *** Present: Dr. Balram K. Gupta, Sr. Advocate with Ms.Anamika Negi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.H.P.Verma, Advocate for respondent No.1. *** KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) The present revision petition has been filed with a prayer that order dated 13.1.2006 passed by the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Gurgaon be set aside. In the present case Lal Chand had filed an application before the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Gurgaon praying that criminal proceedings be stayed during the pendency of civil suit and civil appeal, as they arise on the same facts. Learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class had rightly rejected the application and had imposed costs of Rs.3,000/-. In the present revision petition, reliance has been placed upon Crl.Rev.No.1016 of 2006 [2] an order, Annexure P-2 where the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurgaon had stayed the proceedings in a complaint case titled `Ram Kishore v. Deep Chand and others' till the decision of the civil suit. Petitioner is facing trial in a complaint filed by Deep Chand. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that both the complaints are on the same set of facts, therefore, in a complaint where petitioner is accused proceedings have not been stayed to await the order of the civil court and where co-accused of the petitioner filed a complaint, proceedings have been stayed vide Annexure P-2, to await orders of the civil court. Mr.H.P.Verma has caused appearance for Deep Chand - respondent No.1, at whose instance order, Annexure P-2 was passed. The prayer made in the present petition and order Annexure P-2 are against the well settled legal position. It has been held by a Full Bench of Lahore High Court in B.N.Kashyap v. Emperor, AIR 1945 Lahore 23 that both Civil and Criminal Court act in their own sphere. Where the criminal proceedings are on the same set of facts as civil proceedings are pending, it was held as under:- “There is no reason in my judgment as to why the decision of the civil Court particularly in an action in personam should be allowed to have that sanctity. There appears to be no sound reason for that view. To hold that when a party has been able to satisfy a civil Court as to the justice of his claim and has in the result succeeded in obtaining a decree which is final and binding upon the parties, it would not be open to criminal Courts to got behind the findings of the civil Court is to place Crl.Rev.No.1016 of 2006 [3] the latter without any valid reason in a much higher position than what is actually occupies in the system of administration in this country and to make it master not only of cases which it is called upon to adjudicate but also of cases which it is not called upon to determine and over which it has really no control. The fact is that the issues in the two cases although based on the same facts (and strictly speaking even parties in the two proceedings) are not identical and there appears to be no sufficient reason for delaying the proceedings in the criminal Court, which, unhampered by the civil Court, is fully competent to decide the questions that arise before it for its decision and where in the nature of things there must be a speedy disposal”. This Court is successor Court of Lahore High Court. The matter was further considered by a Constitution Bench in M.S.Sheriff v. State of Madras, AIR 1954 SC 397. The view taken in M.S.Sheriff's case (supra) was further reiterated in another Constitution Bench in Iqbal Singh Marwah and another v. Meenakshi Marwah and another, (2005)4 SCC 370 where it was held as under:- “32. Coming to the last contention that an effort should be made to avoid conflict of findings between the civil and criminal courts, it is necessary to point out that the standard of proof required in the two proceedings are entirely different. Civil cases are decided on the basis of preponderance of evidence while in a criminal case the entire burden lies on the prosecution and proof beyond reasonable doubt has to be given. Crl.Rev.No.1016 of 2006 [4] There is neither any statutory provision nor any legal principle that the findings recorded in one proceeding 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. While examining a similar contention in an appeal against an order directing filing of a complaint under Section 476 of the old Code, the following observations made by a Constitution Bench in M.S.Sheriff v. State of Madras give a complete answer to the problem posed: (AIR p. 399, paras 15-16) “15. As between the civil and the crimial proceedings we are of the opinion that the criminal matters should be given precedence. There is some difference of opinion in the High Courts of India on this point. No hard-and-fast rule can be laid down but we do not consider that the possibility of conflicting decisions in the civil and criminal courts is a relevant consideration. The law envisages such an eventuality when it expressly refrains from making the decision of one court binding on the other, or even relevant, except for certain limited purposes, such as sentence or damages. The only relevant consideration here is the likelihood of embarrassment. 16. Another factor which weights with us is that a civil suit often drags on for years and it is undesirable that a criminal prosecution should wait till everybody concerned has forgotten all about the crime. The public Crl.Rev.No.1016 of 2006 [5] interests demand that criminal justice should be swift and sure; that the guilty should be punished while the events are still fresh in the public mind and that the innocent should be absolved as early as is consistent with a fair and impartial trial. Another reason is that it is undesirable to let things slide till memories have grown too dim to trust. This, however, is not a hard-and-fast rule. Special considerations obtaining in any particular case might make some other course more expedient and just. For example, the civil case or the other criminal proceeding may be so near its end as to make it inexpedient to stay it in order to give precedence to a prosecution ordered under Section 476. But in this case we are of the view that the civil suits should be stayed till the criminal proceedings have finished.” Since counsel for Deep Chand is also present. Order Annexure P-2 is also set aside. Both the complaints titled `Deep Chand v. Ram Kishore and others' and `Ram Kishore v. Deep Chand and others' shall be tried by one Court separately but simultaneously. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurgaon shall entrust complaint titled `Deep Chand v. Ram Kishore and others' pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Gurgaon and complaint titled `Ram Kishore v. Deep Chand and others' pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurgaon to one Court. The proceedings in both the complaints shall be concluded within six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order, as the complaints Crl.Rev.No.1016 of 2006 [6] were instituted in the year 1995. Revision petition is disposed off. ( KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA ) March 18, 2009. JUDGE RC