ASHOK KULAL S/O LATE M. KANTHAPPA Vs. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE SURATKL POLICE STATION MANGALORE - 575 014

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition is filed to quash the proceedings in C.C. No. 116/2004. Heard the learned Counsel for petitioner and learned Government Advocate for State.

(2.) THE proceedings were initiated on 23.07.2002. The accused entered appearance on 13.09.2002. The instant petition was filed on 19.01.2011. There is inordinate delay on the part of petitioner for which there is no satisfactory explanation.

(3.) IN a decision reported in 2005 AIR SCW 1929 (in the case of Iqbal Singh Marwah and another -vs - Meenakshi Marwah and another), Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court has held: 14. 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 that the 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. While examining a similar contention in an appeal against an order directing filing of a complaint under Section 476 of old Code, the following observations made by a Constitution Bench in M.S. Sheriff Vs. The State of Madras and Others, AIR 1954 SC 397 give a complete answer to the problem posed : (15) 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. (16) 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. (17)This, however, is not a hard and fast rule. Special considerations obtaining in any particular case might make some other course more expedient and just. For example, the civil case or the other criminal proceeding may be so near its end as to make it inexpedient to stay it in order to give precedence to a prosecution ordered under Section 476. But in this case we are of the view that the civil suits should be stayed till the criminal proceedings have finished.