OMPRAKASH Vs. INDORE PREMIER CO OPERATIVE BANK LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FINAL arguments heard and record perused. In this revision petition a short question arises about the stay of dispute case filed against petitioner and Non-Applicant No. 2 to 4 by the non-applicant No. 1 under section 64 of the M.P. Cooperative Societies Act, for short hereinafter referred to as Act, for recovery of more than Rs. 31 lakh, which is said to have been defalcated by the petitioner and non-applicant No. 2 to 4 when they were posted at Mangalia branch of petitioner bank. At the same time on the basis a of complaint of non-applicant No. 1, police have registered a criminal case against petitioner and non-applicant No. 2 to 4 under section 420 and 409 of IPC. A charge sheet has been filed and prosecution is pending against them. Non-applicant No. 1 filed an application to stay the proceedings of the dispute case till the criminal case is decided against them. This application has been rejected by the learned Dy. Registrar as per his impugned order dated 14.9.1999, which is under challenge in this revision petition.

(2.) PETITIONER counsel placed his reliance in support of his contention on a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 1954 SC 397 (M.S. Sheriff and another v. State of Madras and others) and also in a another judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (1988) 4 Supreme Court cases 319 (Kusheshwar Dubey v. M/s. Bharat Cooking Coal Ltd. and others). In the formar case the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the simultaneous prosecution and pendency of criminal proceedings and the civil suits will embarrass the accused and that the civil suits should be stayed till the criminal proceedings have finished." In the later case the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down that during the pendency of criminal prosecution on same charge on which disciplinary proceedings are also pending, disciplinary proceedings should be stayed." He has also placed reliance on two single bench Judgment of the High Court reported in 1987 (2) MPWN 211 {Central Bank of India v. Marien Industrial Products) and 1988 JLJ 687 (New Bank of India v. Radhakishan & Co. & others) on the same point.

(3.) THIS case has been relied on by the High Court in a case reported in 1997 (1) JLJ 120 = 1997 (II) MPLJ 646 (Central Bank of India, Indore v. Nemichand Harilal Jain and others) and also in a case reported in 1998 (II) MPLJ SN 6 (Seetal K. Bandi v. Rishi). Placing reliance on the above Judgments of Honourable Supreme Court, the High Court in both these cases has laid down that civil suit cannot be stayed. In both cases before the High Court the criminal prosecution was pending on the charges which was also subject matter of a civil suit.