ASHRU BINDU ROY Vs. CHITTARANJAN BANERJEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This rule was obtained in respect of an order dated 7th of July, 1976 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate, 16th Court, Calcutta in case No. C/602 of 1975 under section 408 I.P.C. rejecting the prayer of the petitioner for staying the proceedings till the disposal of suit no. 458 of 1975 pending in the original side of this High Court.

(2.) It appears that on 30.10.1975 the opposite party no. 1 on behalf of Sahujain Services Limited filed a complaint against the petitioner for having committed an offence punishable under section 408 I.P.C. before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate. After summons was issued the petitioner entered appearance. The case was transferred to the Metropolitan Magistrate, 16th Court, for disposal. It further appears that M/s. Sahujain Services Limited had filed a civil suit against the petitioner on 12.8.1795 in the original side of the High Court praying for a decree for Rs. 64380.63 with interest, inter alia, on the grounds that the petitioner as an employee of the company filed to account for and/or adjust a sum of Rs. 49085.18 belonging to the company. The petitioner filed an application before the Metropolitan Magistrate for stay of criminal case till the disposal of the civil suit as the subject matter of the both was the same. By an order dated the 7.7.1976 the leaned Magistrate rejected the prayer and the same is challenged in this proceeding.

(3.) Both. Mr. Roy who appeared in support of the rule and Mr. Sengupta who opposed the same, referred to some legal principles as laid down by the courts from time to time. The leading case on this point seems to be M.S. Sheriff and another v. The State of Madras reported in A.I.R. 1954 S.C. 397. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate relied on an observation of Bose, J. in that case at paragraph 15 where it was said that as between a civil and the criminal proceedings we are of the opinion that the criminal matters should be given precedence?. The Supreme Court recognized however that there was some difference of opinion in the High Courts on this point and no hard and first rule could be laid down. It was held that possibility of conflicting decisions in the civil and criminal court was not a relevant consideration. The law envisages such eventuality when it expressly refrains from making a decision of one court binding on the other or even relevant except for certain limited purpose such as sentence or damage. Only relevant consideration is the likelihood of embarrassment. The other consideration, which weighed with the Supreme Court, was that a civil suit often dragged on for years and it was undesirable that the criminal prosecution should wait as long in the interest of public justice. It was emphasized that special consideration obtaining in any particular case might make some other course more expedient and just.