THAKURI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A pri vate complaint has been filed by opposite party No. 2 against the applicants under Sections 420, 466 467, 468 and 471, I. P. C. The averments in the application laying down the allegations on which the complaint is based, itself indicate that the stand of the complainant is that the accused persons 1 to 5 figuring in the complaint have got a forged gift-deed prepared and registered by impersonation and accused persons 6 and 7 figured as marginal witnesses. It is also con ceded that a civil suit No. 568 of 1979 has also been filed by the com plainant for the cancellation of the gift-deed in question. The first point urged is that the provisions of Section 195, Cr. P. C. , are attracted and any cognizance in respect of the aforesaid offences could not be taken on a private complaint. The counter-affidavit filed in this case shows that actually the gilt-deed in question has not been produced in the Civil Court. That position is also conceded during the arguments Sec tion 195 (1) (b) (ii) runs as follows;- "195 (1) No Court shall take cognizance- (b) (ii) of any offence described in Section 463, or punishable under Section 471, Section 475 or Section 476, of the said Code, when such offence is alleged to have been committed in respect of a document produc ed or given in evidence in a pro ceeding in any Court, or. " Cognizance of only such offences are barred, which are alleged to have been committed in respect of a docu ment produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in any Court. In the present case, the document, which is said to have been forged, has not been produced before the Civil Court. When that is the position, bar of Section 195 Cr. P. C. , will not be attracted. The next point that is urged is that as a civil suit is pending the criminal proceedings should be stay ed. In support of such submission reliance has been placed upon the case of Satendra Kumar Gupta v. A. B. Shorewala 1978 A. C C. 359, decided by Hon'ble Mr. Justice M. Murtuza Hussain. In that case expediency of the staying of civil proceedings was stressed. It would, however, appear that there is a Supreme Court pronouncement in the case of M. S Sharif v. State of Madras A. I. R. 1954 S. C. 397, laying down that, as bet ween civil and criminal proceed ings we are of the opinion that the criminal matter should be given precedence. A number of reasons have been assigned for such view and it has been also observed that special considerations obtaining in any particular case might make such other course most expedient and just. 'the Supreme Court has, thus, laid down the principle that criminal proceedings are to be given prece dence over civil proceedings, except where special circumstances exist, which is the exception to general rule. In the present case, I do not find any special circumstances. The civil suit may linger on for a very long period, and that being the case, I do not con sider it fit to exercise inherent powers. The application is, accordingly rejected. .