MALTI GARG Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MS . Malti Garg, petitioner has filed the present petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. praying for quashment of FIR No. 12 dated 31.1.1997 registered in Police Station Sadar, Ropar under Sections 420, 465, 468, 471 and 120 -B, IPC.

(2.) THE case set up by the petitioner is that she along with one Surinder Mohan filed a Civil Suit titled Malti Garg and another v. Chand Rani and others, which is pending in the Court of Civil Judge (Jr. Division) at Ropar, vide Annexure P.2 and that the subject matter of FIR Annexure P.1 and that of civil Suit Annexure P.2 is the same and that the findings of the civil court would be ultimately binding upon the criminal Courts and in this view of the matter the said FIR may be quashed. The matter was heard by me at the motion stage itself with the help rendered by Mr. Jasbir Singh Chahal, counsel for the petitioner who mainly relied upon 1997(1) RCC 664: [1997(1) All India Criminal Law Reporter 647 (Pb. and Hry.)], Sat Pal Singh and another v. The State of Punjab, a judgment of Hon'ble single Judge of this Court and 1987 Punjab Legal Reports and Statutes 633 Sardool Singh and others v. Smt. Nasib Kaur.

(3.) I have considered the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner and in the opinion of this Court the correct procedure in such like cases would be not to quash the FIR or to stay the criminal proceedings till the pendency of the Civil suit. Rather directions should be given to the Civil Court as well as to the Criminal Courts in such a manner that both the matters may be sent to one Court so that it could be disposed of on the same day. It is a settled law that civil suits are decided on preponderance of evidence while in a criminal proceeding the prosecution is obliged to prove the charges by proving the guilt beyond reasonable doubt. It is not unknown to the law Courts that civil proceedings can continue for years together because of the incumbersom procedure which is supposed to be adopted by the Civil Court. The judgment and decree of the trial Court can be questioned on the law and fact in the First appellate Court and on the question of law under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure in the High Court. Certain interim orders are supposed to be passed and can be passed in the civil proceedings which interim orders can ultimately become a matter of revision. Can it be said that if the civil suit continues between the parties for years together, the criminal proceedings should be stopped or quashed. The answer of this Court would be in negative for the simple reason that if during the pendency of the civil proceedings, the important witnesses which are supposed to be examined in the criminal proceedings died or won over by the accused, a serious prejudice would be caused not only to the case itself but to the Society itself. In these circumstances, the proper remedy is that both the matters may be sent to one court in order to avoid any conflicting orders, and this is the intention, if I have read correctly, of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the authority which has been relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner.