SEENICHAMY AND OTHERS Vs. RAMAKRISHNAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Crl. M.P. No. 604 of 1977 is a petition under S. 482, Crl.P.C. for stay of all further proceedings in C.C. No. 409 of 1977 on the file of the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Kovilpatti, pending disposal of O.S. No. 347 of 1977 on the file of the Court of the District Muasif of Kovilpatti. Crl.M.P. No. 589 of 1978 is a petition to vacate the interim stay granted in Crl.M.P. No. 6604 of 1977.

(2.) In C.C. No. 409 of 1977 the petitioners in Crl.M.P. No. 6604/77 are being prosecuted by the respondent Ramakrishnammal for the offence of defamation punishable under S. 500, I.P.C., alleging that the petitioners had defamed her by publishing marriage invitation cards as if she was going to be married to the first accused; when in reality there was no such proposed marriage at all. The contention of the petitioners is that actually marriage took place on 8th September 1977 between the respondent and the first accused and they both lived as husband and wife for some days, but due to the evil advice of her mother the respondent went away from her husband deserting him, whereupon the first accused issued a notice through a lawyer and subsequently filed a civil suit before the District Munsif of Kovilpatti in O.S. No. 347 of 1977 for a declaration that there was a valid marriage between him and the respondent. Contending that the subject matter of the aforesaid criminal complaint and the civil suit being the same and the finding of the civil Court would have a direct bearing on the Criminal case, inasmuch as if it is declared in the civil suit that the complainant is the legally wedded wife of the first accused then there would be no question of defamation at all, the petitioners have asked for stay of the criminal proceedings against them till the disposal of the civil suit. It is further contended that the object of the criminal proceedings was only to prejudice the trial of the civil suit and use the same as a lever to coerce the petitioners into a compromise in the civil suit and that the filing of the criminal complaint is a clear abuse of the process of law.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioners in support of the aforesaid contentions has cited the decision in Bishambar Das and another v. Emperor,1927 AIR(Lah) 17. There one Sant Ram, the complainant entered into certain transactions with the petitioner's firm Hemraj-Bishambar Das of Jullundur and Bishambar Das Bodhraj of Bombay both those firms belonging to Bishambar Das and Mai Raj, son of Bishambar Das. The complainant Sant Ram instituted a complaint for an offence under S. 420, I.P.C. against both Bishambar Das and Mai Raj. A civil suit was pending in the Bombay High Court on its original side with regard to all the transactions between both the parties including the transaction in question. It was held by a single judge of the Lahore High Court that where the subject matter of both a criminal case and a civil suit pending in another Court is the same, the criminal case should be stayed. The learned Judge has referred to the decision in Emperor v. Bisher Das 8 I.C. 1161 where it had been held that it was very sound general principle that parties should not be encouraged to resort to criminal Courts in a case in which the point at issue is one which can more appropriately be decided by a Civil Court and that there was unfortunately a tendency on the part of persons, who considered themselves aggrieved to rush to the Criminal Courts either for purpose of obtaining at small cost to themselves a decision on matters which ought in the ordinary course of things to be adjudicated upon by the Civil Courts or of prejudicing the course of proceedings already instituted or about to be instituted in a Civil Court by the other side.