STATE Vs. FOREST RANGE OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) When it came to the notice of this court that some cases pending in criminal courts were stayed by subordinate civil courts in the State, this Court suo motu issued notices to the parties concerned to show cause why such orders should not be quashed as having been passed without jurisdiction. Notice was given to the Advocate General also. Criminal R. P. No. 387 relates to an order of stay issued by the Additional District Judge of Parur in O.S. No. 3 of 1957 staying the trial of C.C. No. 305 of 1957 of the Second Class Magistrates Court of Thodupuzha. Criminal R. P. No. 389 is in respect of an order issued by the Sessions Judge, Trichur staying trial proceedings in C. C, No. 312 of 1957 of the Sub-Magistrates Court, Parur. Criminal R. P. No. 388 relates to an order passed by the Additional District Judge of Parur in C. M. A. No. 70 of 1957 staying trial proceedings in C. C. No. 248 of 1957 of the Sub-Magistrates Court, Parur. The 11th respondent in Criminal R. P. No. 387 who is the accused in C. C. No. 305 of 1957 alone has appeared. The Public Prosecutor was also present at the hearing.

(2.) The question which arises for decision is whether the subordinate civil courts have jurisdiction to stay proceedings pending in criminal courts. This question does not arise in Criminal R. P. No. 389 as the order was issued by the Sessions Judge pending decision of an application to transfer of a criminal case. In the two other cases the orders were passed by civil court trying civil actions.

(3.) There is nothing in the Code of Civil Procedure which confers jurisdiction on civil courts to stay proceedings pending in criminal courts between the parties to the civil litigation. Learned counsel for the 11th respondent in Criminal R. P. No. 387 stated that such orders could be passed under S.151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. No doubt, civil courts have wide powers under S.151 of the Code to make-orders for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of the courts. But in my opinion this will not include the power to stay proceedings pending in criminal courts. Reference was made to Harnam Singh & another v. Mt. Atri & Others ( AIR 1925 Lah. 323 ), a case in which the High Court stayed proceedings under S.476 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in respect of an offence of forgery. In that case the subordinate Judge who tried a suit held that a receipt produced in evidence by the defendants was forged and he issued notice to the defendants to show cause why they should not be prosecuted. During the pendency of the said proceedings the defendants preferred an appeal from the decree to the High Court and an application was made to the High Court to stay the proceedings under S.476 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. An objection was raised on behalf of the respondents that proceedings under S.476 being of a quasi criminal nature, no application could be made under the Code of Civil Procedure. It was held that the High Court had jurisdiction under S.151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to issue order staying proceedings under S.476, as the proceedings were pending in a civil court. There is an earlier decision of the Allahabad High Court in Kirpal Ban v. Ram Dei. (7 I. C. 260) which supports this view. These decisions are of no help in this case because the proceedings which were stayed in those cases were pending in the civil courts. My attention has not been drawn to any case under S.151 recognising such power in civil courts. Apart from S.151 there is no provision in the Code of Civil Procedure to which such power can be traced. It must therefore be held that the subordinate civil courts have no jurisdiction to stay proceedings in criminal courts.