Patna High Court
Bhagirath Bhagat vs Ram Narain Sahu on 20 September, 1929
Equivalent citations: 120IND. CAS.45, AIR 1930 PATNA 194
JUDGMENT Wort, J.
1. This rule was issued to show cause why the proceedings taken against the applicant based on an allegation of forgery should not be quashed. At the present moment it has reached the stage when notices have been issued to the applicant to show cause why he should not be prosecuted. The principle which governs a matter of this kind has been laid down in a number of cases, some of which are referred in the judgment in Hriday Narain Singh v. Emperor 119 Ind. Cas. 888 A.I.R. 1929 Pat. 500 and it only need be stated that the principle is that there is no invariable rule that a criminal proceeding should be stayed pending the result of civil litigation which deals with the same matter. In this case the applicant produced certain documents before the Subordinate Judge and although he got a modified decree before the learned Judge the Court came to the concluaion that these documents were forged, that there were interpolations by the accused. It is stated that there is an appeal pending before this Court which may result in the finding of the learned Subordinate Judge being reversed. That, however, is not a ground for staying the proceeding as has been stated in the case I have quoted in the criminal revision case to which I have referred. It must be assumed that each Court will do justice and also each Court must be allowed to proceed with the business on its file without any intervention of this kind. In any event in my judgment the stage at which these proceedings have reached is not a stage at which I can interfere.
2. I would like to express a very strong opinion that, although the Criminal Procedure Code allows it, it is a very reprehensible course for the parties in a litigation to prosecute a criminal matter of this kind. If it had been obvious to the learned Subordinate Judge that a criminal offence had been committed, then undoubtedly it was his duty to proceed as the law allows him to proceed in bringing the culprit to justice. The Court in this case has allowed one of the parties to the civil litigation to move in the matter, the course which, in my judgment, is not to be encouraged.
3. With these observations I must discharge the rule.