Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Sebadasi Sarkar @ Mondal & Ors vs State Of West Bengal & Anr on 6 March, 2009
Form No.J. (1)
In The High Court At Calcutta
Criminal/Revisional Jurisdiction
Present :
The Hon'ble Justice Partha Sakha Datta.
C.R.R. No. 2385 of 2008.
Sebadasi Sarkar @ Mondal & Ors.
-vs-
State of West Bengal & Anr.
For the petitioner : None appear for the petitioner.
For the Opposite Party : Mr. Joy Sengupta
Judgment on : 06.3.2009
P.S DATTA, J.:
The order dated 21st April 2008 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Nabadwip, Nadia in CR Case No 17/06 is under challenge.
The petitioners are accused in connection with CR Case No. 17/06 u/s 406/465/34 IPC on the strength of a complaint lodged by one Rasbehari Mandal, the opposite party no. 2 herein. It is the allegation in the petition of compliant that the complainant's four sisters executed a power of attorney on 9th February 1993 empowering the complainant to act in terms of thereof. Complainant and his four sisters are co‐sharers of a property as mentioned in paragraph 7 of the petition. Allegedly the accused persons in collusion and conspiracy with each other sold out .84 decimal of land to different persons by different sale deeds and the deeds were registered at Nabadwip. Those deeds were forged because the sisters of the complainant did not execute the sale deeds. Accordingly, offences were alleged u/s 406/420/415/34 IPC.
Before the learned Magistrate a prayer was made for stay of trial of the criminal case on the ground that a civil suit was pending being Title Suit No. 49/98 for adjudication before the Civil Judge, Senior Division, 2nd Court, Krishnagore. The said suit was instituted by the opposite party no. 2 herein. According to the present petitioners the subject matter of the civil suit is the same as that of the criminal proceeding alleging forgery against the present petitioners. Learned Magistrate upon hearing the learned Counsels for the parties was not impressed with the reasoning of the petitioners, and prayer for stay was rejected. This order of the learned Magistrate was challenged in revision before the learned Sessions Judge in Nadia who by the order dated 23rd June 2008 upon hearing rejected the petition. Hence this application has been filed against the order of the learned Sessions Judge dated 23rd June 2008.
None appear for the petitioner.
Mr. Joy Sengupta, learned Advocate appears for the opposite party and I have heard his submission. Mr. Sengupta has referred to decision to a Five‐Judge Bench decision of the Supreme Court in Iqbal Singh Marwah & Anr. Vs. Meenakshi Marwah & Anr. reported in 2005 SCC (Cri) 1108 wherein Their Lordships held that standard of proof required in a civil proceeding is preponderance of evidence while in a criminal case the entire burden lies on the prosecution and proof beyond reasonable doubt has to be adduced and finding recorded in one proceeding may not be treated as final or binding in the other as both the cases have to be decided on the basis of evidence adduced in each such case. The civil suit was instituted by the opposite party praying for declaration of the title to the property on the allegation that the deeds of sale purported to have been made by the sisters of the opposite party no 2 were the products of forgery. The present criminal case brings out a distinct allegation of forgery against the present petitioners. It is alleged that the sisters did not execute the sale deeds and the present petitioners by conspiracy and collusion with each other got the deeds of sale executed purported to have been made in the name of the sisters of the complainant in favor of the different people. Allegation of forgery may be proved upon trial or may not be proved, depending upon the quality of evidence as may be tendered at the time of trial. When a prima facie case was made out before the learned Magistrate alleging forgery against the petitioners there is no logic to stay trial of the criminal case on the ground that a civil suit has been instituted by the opposite party no. 2 herein praying for declaration of title to the property. When a specific allegation has been made against the petitioners of forgery the Civil Court definitely will not be having jurisdiction to enquire into and try the alleged offence of forgery. It is the criminal court that has to put an end to the trial of the criminal case, whatever be the result of the case. Therefore, there is no reasoning for deferment for the trial of the criminal case on the ground that a civil suit is pending.
In the circumstances, the application is dismissed. The order of the learned Sessions Judge, Nadia is affirmed.
(Partha Sakha Datta, J.)