RAMACHANDRAN Vs. UMADEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, hereinafter referred to as the CodeT, for a direction to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Trichur, to stay all further proceedings in M C. 50/84 on his file till the disposal of 0.S. 1012/ 84 pending before the Munsiffs court, Trichur, and to set aside an order passed by the Magistrate dismissing an application for stay.

(2.) First respondent, claiming to be the wife of the petitioner, filed M.C. 50/84 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Trichur for maintenance under section 125 of the Code. On receipt of notice, the petitioner moved the Chief Judicial Magistrate for stay of the maintenance case contending that she is not his legally wedded wife and stating that he has already filed O.S. 1012 of 1984 before the Munsiffs court, Trichur for a declaration that the alleged contract of marriage relied on in M.C. 50/84 is vitiated by fraud and other circumstances. That petition was dismissed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate on the ground that there is no provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure enabling stay of proceedings. The petitioner took up the matter in Crl.R.P. 2/1985 before the Sessions Judge, Trichur. By order dated 10.6.1985, the Sessions Judge considered the revision on the merits and dismissed the same. It is in this background that the present petition under section 482 of the Code was filed.

(3.) In support of his contention, the petitioner relied on the decision in Vasu Vydier v. State of Kerala, wherein it was observed: Stay of trial of a criminal case can be granted pending disposal of the civil suit between the same parties on the same subject matter in suitable cases where facts and circumstances show the stay to be necessary to avoid any embarrassment in the conduct of the criminal proceedings. But, there is no hard and fast rule that criminal proceedings should always be stayed pending disposal of a connected civil suit. From the facts of the present case it is fairly clear that though the approach of the criminal court and the civil court may differ from one another, the facts to be proved in both the cases are almost the same, as in either case it has relation to the extent of performance of the contract of repairs undertaken by the first accused and for which either he had received the payment or had demanded payment on certificates granted by the second accused. In as much as the proceedings before the criminal court has not yet begun and the suit in. the civil courts are ripe for trial there could be no harm in adjourning the criminal proceedings giving a reasonable time to see that the proceedings in the civil courts are over by the trial in the criminal court begins.