Patna High Court
Musammat Phuleshra Kuer vs Emperor on 30 September, 1920
Equivalent citations: 62IND. CAS.185, AIR 1920 PATNA 816
JUDGMENT Jwala Prasad, J.
1. This is an application for the stay of criminal prosecution of the petitioner, Musammat Phuleshra Kuer, pending in the Court of the Sub-Divisional Officer of Chapra, The prosecution was directed by the District Registrar under Section 82(a) of the Registration Act in respect of the following statement made by her:
I executed no sale-deed in favour of Ram Chhabila Singh. I never told Ram Pershad Singh to sign any sale-deed. I never made any mark on any sale-deed. This mark shown to me in Exhibit 1 was not made by me.
2. The sale-deed referred to above is raid to have been executed by the petitioner in favour of Ram Chhabila Singh on the 8th July 1919. Ram Chhabila Singh applied to the Sub Registrar for the registration of the document. The petitioner did not appear and the Sub Registrar refused to register the deed.
3. On appeal to the District Registrar by Ram Chhabila Singh, the petitioner denied having executed the document per her statement quoted above and stated that she had already executed a sale deed in respect of the property in question on the 11th August 1919 in favour of Nagina Prasad and Nand Lal. By his order of the 16th June 1920, the District Registrar ordered the registration of the document and directed the prosecution of the petitioner under Section 82(a) of the Registration Act.
4. On the 29th June 920 the petitioner filed a suit in the Court of the Munsif praying for a declaration that the sale-deed in question of the 8th July was a forged document and that it had never been written and executed by her and she had absolutely no knowledge of it.
5. The Munsif sent a letter to the Sub-Divisional Officer requesting him to stay the institution of the criminal proceeding, on the ground that the question before both the Courts was identical, namely, whether the sals-deed was executed by the Musammat or not. The Sub-Divisional Officer, however, on the 7th August summoned the petitioner and by his order of the 20th August refused to stay the proceedings upon the letter of the Munsif and adjourned the case till the 4th September pending the disposal of the application to this Court. In the case of Debi Mahto v. Emperor 37 Ind. Cas. 477 : 20 C.W.N. 1116 : 18 Cr. L.J. 125 where an order for prosecution under Sections 193 and 209, Indian Penal Code, was made in respect of an application for the grant of a succession certificate, this Court stayed the prosecution pending the disposal of the appeal in this Court from the order of the District Judge of Saran, refusing the grant of a certificate. It was pointed out that it would be anomalous if the civil appeal in this Court were decided in favour of the applicant and at the same time in the criminal proceedings he had suffered rigorous imprisonment for having made an application for the grant of a succession certificate before the Judge and that it would be still more anomalous to prejudge the issue in the civil appeal by holding that there was no chance of its success. The following oases are directly applicable to the present case: Goberdhone Pramanick v. Iswar Chunder Pramanick 5 C.W.N. 44; Ram Charan Singh v. King-Emperor 5 C.L.J. 233 : 5 Cr. L.J. 199. In both these cases, as in the present case, the document was held to have been executed and the alleged executant was directed to be prosecuted under Section 82(a) of the Registration Act. 'Then a civil suit was brought by the executant for a declaration that the document was genuine. The criminal prosecution was stayed, pending the decision of the Civil Court, and the aforesaid anomaly pointed out by this Court in Debi Mahto's case 37 Ind. Cas. 477 : 20 C.W.N. 1116 : 18 Cr. L.J. 125 was substantially given as a reason for the stay.
6. The only possible ground upon which the stay of the criminal prosecution could be refused is that the evidence might by lapse of time become stale or unobtainable; but there is no room for this apprehension, inasmuch as the evidence as to the execution or otherwise of the document in question by the Musammat will be collected in the civil suit. In the event of the document being held to be forged, the prosecution, started soon after the decision of the Munsif, will not be, in any way, prejudiced. On the other hand, there is a danger of a manifest and irreparable injustice being done to the Musammat if she succeeds in the Civil Court and in the meantime she suffers the sentence that may be imposed upon her by the Criminal Court in the event of her conviction.
7. I would, therefore, direct that the proceedings in the Criminal Court be stayed, pending the disposal of the civil suit in the Court of the Munsif at Saran and that the Munsif be requested by a separate letter to dispose of the Title Suit No. 149 of 1120 pending in his Court as expeditiously as possible. This was done in the case of Khobhari Rai v. Bhagwat Roi 41 Ind. Cas. 147 : 1 P.L.W. 793 : 18 Cr. L.J. 771, in which the criminal prosecution was stayed and the Munsif of Gopalgunj in the District of, Saran was directed to expedite disposal of the case.