Calcutta High Court
Ashok Mukherjee vs State Of West Bengal And Anr. on 2 February, 2006
Equivalent citations: 2006(1)CHN691
JUDGMENT Arun Kumar Bhattacharya, J.
1. The twin revisional applications being C.R.R. Nos. 931 of 2002 & 932 of 2002 are directed against the orders dated 20.12.2001 passed by the ld. Judicial Magistrate, 9th Court, Alipore rejecting the prayer of the accused/petitioner for stay of criminal case.
2. As similar question of law and fact are involved, with the difference that FIR being Nos. 121 and 122, both dated 25.05.94 in respect of the C.R.R. Nos. 931 of 2002 and 932 of 2002 were lodged by South School Point and South Point High School respectively, both the matters were heard analogously.
3. The circumstances leading to the above application are that a sizeable amount of money running into several lakhs of rupees was withdrawn from the schools' bank accounts by issuing cheques bearing forged signatures of the cheque-signing authorities of the schools. The present petitioner who was entrusted with the matter relating to bank account confessed his involvement in the defalcation of the funds along with two others Mr. Pradip Choudhury and Mr. Pranabendra Nath Basu Roy. On the basis of above allegation, after completion of investigation chargesheet was submitted against the petitioner and the said two others under Sections 467/471/408/120B.
4. South Point Education Society which runs both the schools instituted a money suit being No. 10/98 for recovery of money and damages to the tune of Rs. 1,21,05,774/- in the Court of ld. Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), 10th Court, Alipore against the petitioner and S.B.I. In view of the various issues raised before the Civil Court in respect of common allegations in both the civil and criminal cases and the decree of the civil suit would be absolutely binding on the Criminal Court, for preventing any abuse of the process of the Court and likelihood of conflicting decision and that in the event of proceeding with the criminal case the petitioner will be seriously prejudiced, the petitioner prayed for stay of the criminal case till disposal of the civil suit which was rejected by the ld. Magistrate by the impugned order.
5. Being aggrieved by, and dissatisfied with, the said order, the petitioner has come up before this Court in revision.
6. All that now requires to be considered is whether the ld. Court below was justified in passing the above order.
7. Mr. Sen, ld. Counsel for the petitioner, on referring the case of M.S. Sheriff v. State of Madras (para 15) and on drawing Court's attention to different paragraphs of the plaint of Money Suit 10/98 advanced argument contending that as those paragraphs bear the ingredients of Sections 467/471/408/120B IPC which are required to be considered in the criminal proceedings, the likelihood of conflicting decisions and embarrassment to his client cannot be ruled out, and as such it is desirable that the criminal proceedings should be stayed till disposal of the said civil suit. Mr. Roy, ld. Counsel for the State, on the other hand, on referring the case of M. Krishna v. Vijay Singh reported in 2002 SCC (Cri) 19, contended that not only the two proceedings are of different nature but also reliefs are different and so continuation of the criminal proceedings will not be a bar in simultaneous proceeding with the civil suit. Mr. Roy further contended that a criminal case may be stayed only on special consideration which is absent here and as such the ld. Magistrate rightly rejected the prayer.
8. It is well-settled that unless the finding of a Civil Court will dispose of the point which has arisen in a criminal case it is inexpedient to adjourn the criminal proceeding. Stay of criminal proceeding may be justifiable only on special grounds which are absent here. The observation of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sheriff (supra) may be reproduced :
As between the civil and the criminal 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.
Another factor which weighs 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 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.
9. Here, both the said criminal cases were lodged in 1994 while the suit was instituted in 1998. The relief in the civil suit is for recovery of money and damages, alternatively an enquiry into the loss and damages suffered by the plaintiff and a decree for the same, while in the criminal proceedings the Court is concerned as to whether the prosecution has been able to establish the charges against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. In this connection, the following observation of another Constitution Bench decision in D.S. Marwah v. Meenakshi Marwah reported in 2005 SCC (Cri) 1101 at 1119, may profitably be reproduced:
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. There is neither any statutory provision nor any legal principle the that 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.
10. Similar is more or less the holding in the case of M. Krishna v. Vijay Singh , as follows :
In this case the allegations were regarding the forging of the documents and acquiring gains on the basis of such forged documents. The proceedings could not be quashed only because the respondents had filed a civil suit with respect to the aforesaid documents. In a Criminal Court the allegations made in the complaint have to be established independently, notwithstanding the adjudication by a Civil Court. Had the complainant failed to prove the allegations made by him the complaint, the respondents were entitled to discharge or acquittal but not otherwise. If mere pendency of a suit is made a ground for quashing the criminal proceedings, the unscrupulous litigants, apprehending criminal action against them, would be encouraged to frustrate the course of justice and law by filing suit with respect to the documents intended to be used against them after initiation of criminal proceedings or in anticipation of such proceedings. Such a course cannot be the mandate of law. Civil proceedings, as distinguished from the criminal action, have to be adjudicated and concluded by adopting separate yard-sticks. The onus of proving the allegations beyond reasonable doubt, in criminal case, is not applicable in the civil proceedings which can be decided merely on the basis of the probabilities with respect to the acts complained of....
11. As gathered from the submission of Mr. Sen, in the civil suit during the last one year only one witness could be examined and that too in part since cross-examination is still continuing. If that be so, it is not known how many witnesses will be examined in that suit and when it will come to an end. In such circumstances, there appears to be no justification for staying the criminal proceedings. Furthermore, disposal of the said suit will not amount to disposal of the criminal proceedings which, as discussed earlier, have to be considered from different aspect. The question of embarrassment, if any, may equally be involved in both the matters but this alone is no ground for overlooking or bypassing the basic factor that the public 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 possible.
12. In the premises, in the light of the above discussion, there being no material to interfere with the decision of the ld. Court below, both the revisonal applications be dismissed.
13. Let a copy of the order be sent down at once to the Id. Court below.