RAJENDRA KUMAR Vs. SANDHYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision under Section 115 of the Cr. P. C. is directed against the order dated 13. 1. 93 of District Judge, Rajgarh (Biora) passed in Hindu Marriage Case No. 19/91, whereby the learned Judge has refused to stay civil proceedings.

(2.) BRIEF history of the case is that non-applicant, who was married to applicant somewhere in January 90, has filed a petition under Sections 11 and 12 of Hindu Marriage Act for divorce and for return of property given to her during marriage. The respondent applicant (husband) made appearance and filed an objection that as the criminal proceeding is pending on same facts, the civil proceeding be stayed till disposal of the criminal case. The same did not find favour with the District Judge, hence, this revision.

(3.) THE contention of the learned Counsel for the applicant is that since applicant (here) is being prosecuted for an offence under Sections 420, 498-A of the I. P. C. and the Dowry Prohibition Act on the complaint of non-applicant (wife) and on the same grounds, therefore, any disclosure of defence by way of written statement is likely to embrace the accused and shall further jeopardise defence of accused applicant (here) and, therefore, the civil suit be stayed till disposal of the criminal case. As against it learned Counsel for the non-applicant has submitted that cases under Hindu Marriage Act are required to be disposed of at the earliest and, therefore, the same does not deserve to be stayed. It has also been submitted that the civil case would be decided on the basis of preponderance of probability while the criminal case would be decided on the basis of certainty and, therefore, different degree of proof would be required in both the cases. Learned Counsel therefore strongly argued against stay of the suit.