V V RAMESH Vs. V PADMALATHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner herein filed O.S. No. 776 of 1989 on the file of the III Additional District Munsif's Court, Vijayawada, seeking a permanent injunction restraining the respondent from marrying the second defendant in that suit. The respondent filed O P. No. 182 of 1988 on the file of the II Additional Subordinate Judge, Vijayawada, under Section 12 (1) (c) of the Hindu Marriage Act, seeking a declaration that the marriage between her and the petitioner is vitiated by force and fraud and to annul the marriage by a decree of nullity. The respondent's brother filed a complaint against the petitioner and 23 others and the same was registered as Cr.No, 67 of 1988 of VI Town L & O Police Station, Vijayawada, under Section 363 IPC. The suit was filed earlier to O.P. The Police filed a charge-sheet into the Court and it is registered as PRC No. 4 of 1989. The petitioner filed a counter in the O.P. and the respondent herein filed her written statement in the suit. When both O.P. and the suit were ripe for trial after framing the necessary issues, Tr. CMP No. 2 of 1979 was filed in this Court. This Court on 20-3-1889 ordered the transfer of the suit to the Court of the II Addl. Subordinate Judge, Vijayawada, which was renumbered aa O.S, No. 264 of 1989, and directed the Sub-Court to dispose of both the O.P. and the suit expeditiously preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the orders. The petitioner's case is that he married the respondent on 21 -6-1988 At Vikuntapuram, Tenali and thereafter both proceeded to Madras and got the marriage registered on 29-6-1988 and returned to Vijayawada on 30-6-1988. On 1-7-1988 both went to the Police Station and he was released on bail on 6-7-1988. After passing of the order for trial of both the O.P. and the suit by one and the same officer when they were about to be taken up for disposal, the petitioner herein filed I A. No. 2459 of 1989 in O.P. 182 of 1988 under Section 151 C.P C. to stay the enquiry and trial in O.P. No. 182 of 1988 and O.S. No. 264 of 1989. The learned Subordinate Judge found that the civil proceedings have reached the stage of trial and the criminal proceedings are still at the committal stage before the Magistrate and besides that there is a direction of this Court to dispose of the same expeditiously, the proceedings under the Hindu Marriage Act are speedy proceedings and even the statute under the Hindu Marriage Act suggests that the proceedings shall be completed within six months and so no case has been made out and hence dismissed the application. Against that order, the present revision petition has been filed.

(2.) Sri C. Poornaiah. the learned counsel "for the petitioner contendedthat the questions that fall for the consideration and the evidence to be adduced in the O.P. and in the criminal case are one and the same and if the petitioner is compelled to participate in the enquiry into O.P., his defence in the criminal case will be embarrassed and the petitioner will have to disclose in the O.P. his defence to the criminal charge and his evidence and the line of attack against the prosecution case and that the lower Court has not taken this into consideration. It is also contended that the petitioners right guaranteed under Article 20 (1) of the Constitution of India would be violated in case he is compelled to participate in the present enquiry. If the lower Court proceeds with the enquiry into the O.P. the petitioner will be placed in such a situation wherein he cannot but examine himself on pain of losing his case in the O.P. as also the connected suit. If he examines himself, he will expose himself to cross examination, the purpose of which will be to elicit information favourable to the respondent. Any such information which the respondent wilt try to elicit falls within the mischief of Article 20 (3) of the Constitution of India.

(3.) In a recent judgment of the Supreme Court in Kusheshwar Dubeyvs. M/s Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. #1 it was held that while there can be no legal bar for simultaneous proceedings being taken, yet there may be cases where it would be appropriate to defer diciplinary proceedings awaiting disposal of the criminal case. In the later class of cases it would he open to the delinquent employee to seek such an order of stay or injunction from the Court. Whether in the facts and circumstances of a particular case there should or should not be such simultaneity of the proceedings would then receive judicial consideration and the Court will decide in the given circumstances of a particular case as to whether the disciplinary proceedings should be interdicted, pending criminal trial. It is neither possible nor advisable to evolve a hard and last, strait-jacket formula valid for all cases and of general application without regard to the particularities of the individual situation.