BHUWANESHWAR PANDEY Vs. SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SRI Ram Avadh Pandey, Respondent No. 3 made a complaint on 24 -10 -1976 before the Nyay Panchayat Raotipur, Pargana and Tahsil Jamania district Ghazipur against the Petitioner for the offences under Sections 426 and 447 of the Indian Penal Code. The Nayay Panchayat after giving an opportunity of being heard to the Petitioner and Respondent No. 3, by its order dated 30 -6 -1977. held the Petitioner guilty for the offences under the aforesaid provisions and imposed a fine of Rs. 20/ - for both the offences, out of which Rs. 5/ - was ordered to be paid to the complainant -Respondent no 3 Against the order of Nyay Panchayat the Petitioner filed revision before the sub Divisional Magistrate Jamania district Ghazipur under Section 89 of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), which has also been dismissed by order dated 30 -11 -1978. It is against these two orders that the Petitioner has filed this writ petition before this Court.

(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the Petitioner has argued that a dispute about title of the land in question was pending in the Civil Court in the form of a suit filed by the Petitioner, the Nyay Panchayat should not have proceeded with the case and should not have passed the impugned order until the suit was decided In that connection learned Counsel for the Petitioner has placed reliance on the cases of Ram Ekbal Rai v. Jaldhari Pandey : AIR 1972 SC 949, and Babu Ram v. State, (1971) ALJ 4 (DB). Learned Counsel for the Respondent has, on the other hand, argued that the suit filed by the Petitioner did not raise bonafide dispute about the title to the property in question and in fact the suit was filed as a device to escape from the conviction In this connection learned Counsel has invited my attention to the fact that the incident, regarding which compliant was filed by the Respondent No. 3 took place on 24 -10 -1976, whereas the suit was filed by the Petitioner in Civil Court on 30 -10 -1976 i.e. after about six days of the incident

(3.) UNDER law there is no bar for both, the civil and criminal proceedings, going on simultaneously and the possibility of conflicting decisions of criminal and civil courts have been held to be not relevant consideration in order to decide whether to proceed with both the proceedings or not. The courts have, however, evolved certain principles in order to decide whether both, civil and criminal, proceedings should go on simultaneously or not; the principle being likely embarrassment or likely prejudice by simultaneous prosecution of both civil and criminal cases In accordance with the aforesaid principles, as between civil and criminal proceedings, criminal proceedings are given precedence, the reason being the delay in deciding civil suit and the necessity of expeditious decision in criminal cases. In this connection reference may be made to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of M.S. Sheriff v. State of Madras : AIR 1954 SC 397, relevant extract from which is reproduced below;