Men Rights India

  • Contact
  • Bare Acts
    • IPC 498A bare act
    • CrPC 125 Bare Act
    • The Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005 – bare act
    • Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 Bare Act
  • 498a
    • 498a Tips
    • 498a Info
    • 498a Judgments
  • DV Act
    • DV Act Tips
    • DV Act Info
    • DV Act Judgments
  • Maintenance
    • Maintenance CrPC 125 Judgments
    • Maintenance HMA 24 Judgments
  • Child Custody
    • Child Custody Visitation Judgments
    • Child Custody Visitation News
  • Misc
    • Divorce Judgments
    • Law Misuse
    • Marriage
    • Misandry
    • Sexual Harassment
    • Important Posts
You are here: Home » Uncategorized » Civil and Criminal cases can go on together and independently

Civil and Criminal cases can go on together and independently

15 Mar 2010 By videv 2 Comments

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.

👉(Read Online eBook): How to Fight and Reduce Maintenance under CrPC 125 and DV Act 👈

👉(Read Online eBook): Alimony and Maintenance under Hindu Law👈

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

READ:  MP HC denies maintenance to wife on her CrPC 125 appeal

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.

Links to Free eBooks

1. Download my free PDF eBook Surviving the Legal Jungle

2. Read this FREE eBook written by fathers involved in child custody issues (Read Online) (PDF book)

3. How to Fight and Reduce Maintenance under CrPC 125 and DV Act (Read Online)

Links to Paid eBooks/Books


1. How to Fight and Reduce Maintenance under CrPC 125 and DV Act (Digital eBook) (Print Paperback)

2. Self-study Book on Divorce for Men (Digital eBook Only)

3. Alimony and Maintenance under Hindu Law (Digital eBook) (Print Paperback)

Related Posts

  1. Factors for increase in maintenance under CrPC 125 and CrPC 127
  2. Discharge under CrPC 239
  3. Procedure of CAW (Crime against women) cell
  4. Gujarat HC allows examining account books of wife’s employer in maintenance case

Filed Under: Uncategorized Tagged With: Commando Gyan, HC Judgment

Comments

  1. VINCENT says

    October 6, 2018 at 8:49 pm

    i am an complainant in a police report U/c 145 CrPC before SDM Court. court issue order in favour of my complaint and respondent go to higer court, High court returned the order to SDM with direction that, it had procedure error, and issue a new order by giving opportunity to both side for produce evidence, respondant give the only evidence that, they file a civil case about this matter at muncif court. the civil case filed only after three month when the SDM Court started its CrPC procedure, my doubt is that SDM can stop this procedure by saying that it is civil matter

    Reply
    • videv says

      October 8, 2018 at 11:02 pm

      Whether the matter is purely civil or can attract criminal provisions also, depends purely on facts of the case. E.g. sometimes people file for both civil defamation (for damages) along with criminal defamation. You should try to win case on merits, rather than doing forum shopping.

      Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Call Men Rights India numbers For 498A/406/Dowry Case/DV/Maintenance/child custody-visitation/abusive-wife/false cases, CALL volunteers' phone lines (for quick guidance only):
(Be respectful to volunteers, & we don't advise on divorce)

1. Kannada/Hindi/English: +919738010456
2. Tamil/English: +919962514226

Join our WhatsApp/Facebook groups for FREE guidance/discussion

Join Our Telegram Channel for FREE updates

Social

Facebook
Twitter
YouTube
Instagram

Search this website

Important/Must Read/Permanent Posts

  • How to assess your false case and marriage breakup probability
  • How to take action against police or magistrate for 498A arrest without following CrPC 41 41A?
  • Why Indian men should be very careful in filing divorce
  • What to do if CAW cell/police/advocate is putting pressure to compromise
  • Innocent until proven guilty is the law, use it!
  • Advice to men on 498a, maintenance, DV, divorce, child custody, what else
  • How to find and manage your lawyer in 498a, DV, CrPC 125, divorce, RCR cases
  • How to fight false cases of DV, Maintenance, CrPC 125, 498a etc
  • How to assess maintenance amount likely to be ordered in CrPC 125 or HMA 24
  • Notes and questions on court procedures
  • What should be my stand in court?
  • Understanding the divorce industry in India

Book: How to Fight and Reduce Maintenance under CrPC 125 and DV Act


👉(Read Online eBook)👈
(Buy Print book)
(Buy Digital eBook)
(Information about the Book)

Today’s Popular Posts

  • How to file objections/written statement to…
  • Procedure of CAW (Crime against women) cell
  • Tax evasion report has to be made public after investigation
  • How an NRI man fought false 498a, 406 cases within 6 months
  • How to Fight and Reduce Maintenance under CrPC 125…
  • Dowry givers to be prosecuted – Delhi sessions court
  • How to fight false cases of DV, maintenance, CrPC…
  • No provision to return marriage expenses to bride
  • Divorce made easier, or rather possible – but watch out!
  • How to handle allegation of impotence by wife

Tags

498A Activism Arrest Child Support Child_Custody_Visitation Commando Gyan Commando Strategy Commando Techniques CrPC CrPC 125 Cruelty Divorce Domestic Violence Industry Dowry DV Act Judgments Evidence False Case False Rape Family Law Feminazis Feminist Figures Feminist Propaganda Fight Back HC Judgment Hindu Marriage Act HMA 24 Law Making Law Misuse Laws Legal Info live-in Maintenance Marriage Men Rights NCW NRI Police Press Release PWDVA(DV Act) Rape RTI SC Judgment Supreme Court WCD Women Reservation Bill

The Benefits of Reading Men Rights India!

before reading MRI
Before


after reading MRI
After

email: I am facing false DV case. I love your blog. It really have me boost to fight this case and I feel so happy that you guys are doing such a commendable work.


comment: Your survey is 100 % true. whatever is written in this blog matches more than 90 % of my marriage life situation.


comment: The Article is really great, it’s actually happening in my life. whatever is mentioned here is the tactics are used by my wife and still going on….


comment: This is a very good article, and some points mentioned here are the real reasons males are threatened to shell out the maintenance amount


comment: This document is very help for me,becoise i am sufring for false dowry case and fiting for them.so thank for to u.


comment: The web content is very useful for its diversity and especially for atrocities committed upon men, emitting a clarion call for them to rise and defend their rights and hood.


comment: Thanks you People doing very may allah grant you Success. Ameen.


comment: This is very helpful. Thanks a lot. Your work is really a morale booster..
Search judgments at Bharat Law
Read judgments at Bharat Law
IPC 498A Judgments
IPC 406 Judgments
DV Act Judgments
CrPC 125 Judgments
Child Custody Judgments

Author on Facebook

Vivek Deveshwar

Free eBook: Surviving the Legal Jungle

Surviving-the-Legal-Jungle-Cover-Image

Featured Posts

Addresses to post letters/faxes to

18 Oct 2009 By videv Leave a Comment

Government proposes amending IPC 498a – anti-dowry law

27 Jul 2014 By videv 10 Comments

Marital rape not a crime in India… yawn, being a married man can be though!

22 Feb 2015 By videv Leave a Comment

Cognizable and non-cognizable offence

1 Aug 2009 By videv Leave a Comment

RTI Learning — Tutorials, Guides, Templates

8 Sep 2009 By videv Leave a Comment

Equality for Men – Myth or Reality?

Download IMD handbook
Download IMD handbook

Recent Comments

  • videv on How to get Provident Fund (PF) details of wife
  • Raghu on How to get Provident Fund (PF) details of wife
  • videv on How to assess maintenance amount likely to be ordered in CrPC 125 or HMA 24
  • P2 on How to assess maintenance amount likely to be ordered in CrPC 125 or HMA 24
  • Child visitation monitor New Haven on Strategy for Child Custody for Men

RSS Feeds

  • All Posts
  • DV Act Judgments
  • Maintenance CrPC 125 Judgments
  • 498A Judgments

Archives

Copyright © 2009-2021 · Vivek Deveshwar · Privacy Policy
  • Contact
  • Bare Acts
    • IPC 498A bare act
    • CrPC 125 Bare Act
    • The Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005 – bare act
    • Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 Bare Act
  • 498a
    • 498a Tips
    • 498a Info
    • 498a Judgments
  • DV Act
    • DV Act Tips
    • DV Act Info
    • DV Act Judgments
  • Maintenance
    • Maintenance CrPC 125 Judgments
    • Maintenance HMA 24 Judgments
  • Child Custody
    • Child Custody Visitation Judgments
    • Child Custody Visitation News
  • Misc
    • Divorce Judgments
    • Law Misuse
    • Marriage
    • Misandry
    • Sexual Harassment
    • Important Posts