JAI PAL Vs. NARAIN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is against the order dated 7-6-1996 by which the Additional Sessions Judge, Kapurthala, while allowing the revision, ordered to face the prosecution for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 467, 471 and 120B I.P.C. The prosecution is an outcome of the allegations that two sale deeds were got executed by forging a power of attorney which purported to have-authorised the holder of it to execute such sale deeds. The power of attorney was executed in the name of one Piara Ram son of Ditta Ram. The counsel for the complainant submits that such a person shown as power of attorney holder was an imaginary figure, and at the time of execution of the sale deeds on the basis of that power of attorney, somebody personated as Piara Ram and executed the sale deeds. Presently, I need not to go into the details of the allegations. Suffice it to mention that sale in question have given rise to filing of a suit for setting aside those sale deeds. In the trial Court, a decree was passed holding these sale deeds as null and void Against that decision, a civil appeal in the District Court, Kapurthala, was filed; and it came to be decided on 7-6-1996. Pertinent to note that the same Judge in his capacity as Additional District Judge, while passing the judgment on 7-6-1996 allowed the civil appeal and remanded the case to the trial Court for fresh evidence. The reasons given by him indicate that the defendant-appellant in that case (who are also the present revision petitioners 1 to 3), did not have opportunity to lead the evidence in order to establish that the sale deeds were genuine transactions. In the context of that it is pertinent to note that the same Judge while functioning in a capacity as Additional Sessions Judge, on the same day (7-6-1996) passed the order, which is subject matter of the present revision. The reasons assigned by him in para 15 of the judgment indicate that he relied on judgment of the Civil Court to arrive at a conclusion that the document were held to be illegal and void as the other side had failed to prove the genuineness of those documents. On this premise, he directed to proceed against the revision petitioners. It, therefore, appears that on one side he based his reasoning on the decision of the Civil Court to arrive at the conclusion that the petitioners should be proceeded against in criminal case. On the same day, on the other hand, he has set aside the decree passed in that civil suit and remanded the matter back. Under these circumstances, the matter has now come up before me.

(2.) The counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on a case of Sardool Singh v. Smt. Nasib Kaur. In that case, the parties were litigating on the issue as to the genuineness of a Will. Two civil proceedings were already pending in which the question of genuineness of the Will was already subjudice. In the set of these facts, their Lordships of the Supreme Court observed as follows: The Civil Court is, therefore, seized of the question as regards the validity of the Will. The matter is sub-judice in the aforesaid two cases in Civil Courts. At this junction the respondent cannot therefore be permitted to institute a criminal prosecution on the allegation that the Will is a forged one. That question will have to be decided by the Civil Court after recording the evidence and hearing the parties in accordance with law. It would not be proper to permit the respondent to prosecute the appellants on this allegation when the validity of the Will is being tested before a Civil Court.' Their Lordships at the conclusion of the decision quashed the proceedings by observing that that decision will not come in the way of instituting appropriate proceedings in future in case the Civil Court comes to the conclusion that the Will is a forged one.

(3.) On the basis of the aforesaid ruling, counsel for the petitioners argued that the criminal proceedings cannot be instituted simultaneously with the civil proceedings. In the context of this, it may be noted that the civil suit in this case was filed on 16-2-1991. The criminal complaint was filed on 24-12-1991. Thus, on the day on which the criminal case was filed, the matter was already sub-judice before the Civil Court.