To a common doubt of husbands if both family court/civil and 498a/criminal cases filed by wife can go on together, this Delhi HC judgment clarifies as a yes.
The below Delhi HC judgment says that there is no standard rule that a civil case should be stayed before a criminal case is finished on same grounds. It refers to several other judgments including Supreme Court’s and basically the matter has to be decided on case by case basis.
The main idea of having criminal case finish faster is to let justice be done before the witnesses forget about the crime. The argument to grant protection under Article 20(3) of constitution against self-incrimination also cannot be granted blindly but only on case by case basis. Article 20(3) is given below:
(3) No person accused of any offence shall be compelled
to be a witness against himself.
Also, the judgment refers to SC judgment which states that criminal and civil cases can be independently decided without one’s decision having bearing on another:
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 are to be decided on the basis of the evidence
adduced therein.
Full judgment below with important points in bold:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
SUBJECT : INDIAN PENAL CODE
Date of Reserve: October 31, 2008
Date of Order: December 01, 2008
CM(M) 532/2007
VIPIN JAIN and ORS. ... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Ashish Bhagat with
Mr. Abdesh Chaudhary and Ms.
Prerna, Advs.
Versus
YOGESH JAIN ... Respondent
Through: Mr. B.S. Chauhan, Adv.
1. By this petition, the petitioner has assailed an order of learned ADJ whereby an
application of the petitioner under Section 151 for stay of suit pending before the ADJ
was dismissed.
2. The brief facts relevant for purpose of deciding this petition are that the petitioner
was involved in a criminal case under Section 326 of IPC and an FIR bearing no. 18/2005
was registered against the petitioner. The incident involved throwing of sulphuric acid on
the respondent which caused disfigurement and severe bodily injuries. The respondent
also filed a criminal complaint regarding this incident under Sections
307/326/328/201/120-B/506 read with Sections 190 and 200 of Cr.P.C. in the Court of
MM. The criminal case as registered against the petitioner as well as the criminal
complaint are at the stage of evidence.
3. The respondent filed a civil suit against the petitioner and others claiming
damages of Rs. 12 lacs for dis-figuring his face and right side of the body, and for
damaging right eye and right ear by throwing sulphuric acid mixture with toxic chemical
solution. When the suit came up for hearing, the petitioner did not file WS and moved an
application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC read with Section 151 for rejection of the plaint.
This application was dismissed by the learned ADJ with costs of Rs.500/-. The petitioner
then filed an application under Section 151 CPC for stay of proceedings and still did not
file WS which was dismissed by the learned ADJ subject to costs of Rs.2,000/- and
petitioner was directed to file the written statement as on 22nd April, 2007.
4. The petitioner preferred this petition against the order of the learned ADJ. This
Court granted an interim injunction on 20th April, 2007 and directed for service of notice.
A perusal of record shows that defective PF was filed on first hearing so the notice could
not be served upon the respondent and the interim order continued. Thereafter, the
respondent was served for 16th November, 2007. On that date the matter was adjourned
to 17th July, 2008. On 17th July, 2008 petitioner's counsel was not available to argue the
petition and an adjournment was sought. Finding that since the proceedings before the
Trial Court had been stayed and the matter was not being argued this Court vacated the
stay in view of non-availability of the counsel for arguments and gave direction for filing
WS within one week and directed the suit to proceed. The matter was fixed in the
'Regular Category'. Soon after vacating the stay an application for early hearing was
made by the petitioner and undertaking was given that the WS shall be filed before the
Trial Court within 2 weeks. However, the matter was taken up on 31st October, 2008 for
final disposal.
5. It is argued by counsel for the petitioner that if the trial of the Civil Court is not
stayed, the petitioner would suffer grave prejudice as his defence would get disclosed.
This plea of the petitioner is not supported from the facts and circumstances. The
criminal case against petitioner is already in progress and is at the stage of evidence. It is
the petitioner who is dragging the criminal case and does not allow the Trial Court to
proceed and seeks adjournments, as has been done before this Court and due to this
reason, the Criminal case shall not drag and evidence shall be over in a short time. The
criminal case in which evidence started more than a year back would be at an advanced
stage and the civil case is only at the initial stage of filing of WS.
6. The question of disclosure of defence by the petitioner and getting prejudiced
does not arise at all. In fact in this petition itself, the petitioner has already disclosed his
defence. The only defence taken by the petitioner is that the incident alleged against the
petitioner was false and fabricated; in the FIR false allegations have been made; in the
complaint also false allegations had been made. This is not a case where certain
documents are involved and the petitioner has to disclose his defence about the
documents. The petitioner's total defence is bare denial of the incident and denial of his
liability for payment of damages as is evident from the petition. Under these
circumstances saying that the petitioner would be prejudiced, is beyond comprehension.
The evidence in the criminal case is already going on. The evidence in the civil case has
yet to start. Moreover in the evidence before civil court, the plaintiff apart from proving
who caused him injuries would have to prove the quantum of damages due to dis-figuring
of his face, mental agony etc. etc. which would not be issues involved in the criminal
Court.
7. The petitioner's counsel relied upon M.S. Sheriff vs. State of Madras AIR 1954
Supreme Court 397 wherein the Supreme Court observed that as between the civil and
the criminal proceedings the criminal matters should be given precedence but no hard and
fast rule should be laid down. The possibility of conflicting decisions in the Civil and
Criminal courts is not a relevant consideration. The Court observed that the factor which weighs with the Court was 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 so criminal matters should have precedence.
8. There is no quarrel with this legal preposition rather this is a situation in this case.
Criminal proceedings got initiated in 2005 itself while the civil suit was instituted in
2007. It is the petitioner who is trying to drag the civil suit. This Court does not know at
what stage is the evidence in criminal proceedings. The only submission made is that the
criminal proceedings is at the evidence stage. Thus, criminal case is already having
precedence. There is no reason why the civil proceedings should be stayed.
9. This Court in Harinder Jit Singh Walia vs. The State and Another 2000 I AD
(Delhi) 389 had occasion to consider similar situation and observed as under : ?14. The
question whether it is desirable to permit civil and criminal proceedings to be taken
simultaneously, has come up for consideration before the Supreme Court in a number of
cases, where the Court in fact was dealing with the converse situation namely, whether
the civil suit/departmental proceedings, should be stayed till the disposal of criminal
proceedings. In those cases, the argument was primarily based on the right of a person to
protection against self-incrimination or testimonial compulsion, as enshrined in Article
20(3) of the Constitution and it was sought to be contended that all accused have a
constitutional right to maintain silence and he cannot be compelled to state his defense in
a criminal proceeding by filing affidavit in suit. The theory of protection under Article
20(3) in a case where the accused files an affidavit or examines himself as a witness in a
civil suit on the plea that it would be tantamount to compelling has to be a witness against
himself in respect of the criminal proceedings was rejected on the ground that protection
under Article 20(3) relates to the question of compulsion, which was non-existent in the
aforenoted situation. It was observed that the rule against testimonial compulsion does
not go to the extent of making the accused a universally privileged person. 15. Dealing
with the question whether the civil action namely, disciplinary proceedings for assaulting
a supervisory officer should be stayed till the disposal of criminal case instituted against
an employee, the Supreme Court in Kusheshwar Dubey Vs. M/s. Bharat Coking Coal
Limited and Ors., MANU/SC/0246/1988, applying the ratio of its earlier decisions in
Delhi Cloth and General Mills Ltd. Vs. Kushal Bhan MANU/SC/0228/1960, Tata Oil
Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. Its Workmen MANU/SC/0206/1964, Jang Bahadur Singh Vs. Baij
Nath Tiwari MANU/SC/0354/1968, held that there is no legal bar for simultaneous
proceedings being taken, but the question whether in a particular case disciplinary
proceedings should be interdicted pending criminal trial has to be decided in the facts and
circumstances of each case and it is neither possible nor advisable to evolve any hard and
fast, straight - jacket formula valid for all cases and of general application without regard
to the particularities of the individual situation. 16. In M.S. Sheriff and Anr. Vs. State of
Madras and Ors., MANU/SC/0055/1954, rejecting the argument that simultaneous
prosecution for perjury and the civil for damages for wrongful confinement would
embarrass the accused and considering the question as to which of the proceedings
should be stayed, the Apex Court while opining that as between the civil and criminal
proceedings, the criminal matters should be given precedence, observed ``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.'` 17. In a recent decision in V.M. Shah Vs.
State of Maharashtra and Anr., MANU/SC/0087/1996, the Supreme Court has re-
emphasised the need for giving preference to the criminal proceedings. 18. The settled
principle of law, thus, is that there is no constitutional or legal bar or prohibition for both
the civil as well as the criminal proceedings, to go on simultaneously. There is no rigid
straight-jacket fixed formula for staying proceedings in a criminal case while civil
proceedings are pending and it would depend on the facts of each case. Indeed, as
observed by the Apex Court in M.S. Sheriff's case (Supra) the public interest demands
that criminal justice should be swift and sure so that the guilty are punished while the
events are still fresh in the public mind. Therefore, criminal matters should be given
precedence over the civil matters. Besides, ordinarily, decision of a civil court is not
binding on a criminal Court. Nor is a criminal court's decision binding on the civil court.
In a criminal case all the ingredients of the offences have to be established in order to
secure the conviction of the accused.
10. In Iqbal Singh Marwah and Anr. vs. Meenakshi Marwah and Anr. AIR 2005 SC
2119, Supreme Court observed that both civil and criminal proceedings in respect of an
incident can go ahead simultaneously. 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 are to be decided on the basis of the evidence
adduced therein.
11. Similarly, in P.Swaroopa Rani vs. M. Hari Narayana @ Hari Babu, AIR 2008 SC
1884 Supreme Court observed that criminal proceedings and civil proceedings can
proceed simultaneously and there was no statutory bar on two proceedings being
conducted simultaneously.
12. In the present case, the effort of the petitioner has been to see that civil
proceedings are dragged and the respondent who had filed suit for damages for dis-
figurement of his face, loss of right eye and right ear allegedly at the hand of the
petitioner and others was made to suffer further mental agony continuously and not even
being heard for damages. I consider that in the present case, when criminal proceedings
are already in progress and the civil proceedings were only at the initial stage the
applications made by the petitioner were only the efforts to prolong and further torment
the respondent. The petition is a frivolous petition and is liable to be dismissed with
costs. The petition is hereby dismissed with costs of Rs. 25,000/-.
Sd./-
December 01, 2008 SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA J.