KABAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner seeks quashing of the FIR on the ground that since the decree for money had been passed in the arbitration proceedings, criminal prosecution would not be now tenable on the allegations of embezzlement of the same amount which was the subject matter of the arbitration proceedings. It was submitted that the proceedings in this case have been initiated on the basis of report dated 10.2.1988 in respect of occurrence dated 9.12.1987, and since then no progress had taken place in the matter. On this premises it is contended that keeping in view the spirit of Article 21 of the Constitution, the FIR deserves to be quashed.

(2.) IN support of the argument, the counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to a single Bench ruling of this Court in the case of Harbhagwan Dass v. State of Punjab, 1983(2) RCR 156. In that case his Lordship was of the view that since there was an award in respect of the amount in question, the matter has assumed the characteristics of civil nature and the taking of the criminal proceedings against the defaulter regarding the same matter was abuse of process of the Court. In continuation of the same observations, his Lordship also observed that the jurisdiction of the criminal Court to initiate such proceedings, however, cannot be disputed. Thus, the tenor of the judgment indicated that in case where the matter assumes civil nature, criminal proceedings need not be resorted to.

(3.) IN this case it may be noted that the arbitration award was for a sum of Rs. 1,41,709.31. The payment notice Annexure P-3 shows that on 6.10.1993 the amount swelled to Rs. 1,83,942. It is further stated by the counsel that a revision petition in respect of that award is still pending. But there is nothing to indicate the pendency of such revision petition. Moreover, I would say that the pendency of such revision petition would not be a bar for the criminal proceedings which have been initiated long back in 1988. The civil decree at the best makes it obligatory on the person to pay the amount, failing which the recovery of the amount would be by adopting any of the coercive methods available under civil law. That is altogether for a different measure in respect of the recovery of the amount involved. The act of misappropriation of the said amount gives rise to altogether a different position covered by the Penal Code. Section 403 of the Indian Penal Code spells out what dishonest misappropriation of property would amount to. Section 405 of the Indian Penal Code defines the criminal breach of trust. In other words, criminal liability is distinct and in a given case it is in addition to recovery of the amount. There is no provision whatsoever to indicate that one is exclusive remedy to the other, or if one remedy is resorted to, other remedy was barred.