YEENA GUPTA Vs. STATE OF H P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner herein instituted, a complaint, under the provisions of Section 156(3) Cr.P.C, before, the learned Magistrate concerned. The learned Magistrate concerned pronounced thereon, an order for registration of an F.I.R., against, one Mohinder Nath Sofath, for his allegedly committing offences, under, Sections 420 and 406 IPC read with Section 34 I.P.C. The Investigating Officer, after, completing Investigations, filed, a report before the learned Court concerned, wherein he made proposal(s) for cancelling the apposite F.I.R. The learned Magistrate concerned, accepted, the proposal meted before him, by the Investigating Officer concerned. The reason for his accepting, the proposals made by the Investigating Officer, arose (i) from existence of a partnership agreement inter se one Veena Gupta and one Mohinder Nath Sofat, wherewithin, an arbitration clause No. 12 exists (ii) with echoing(s) therein of theirs ad-idem contracting to settle all contracted controversies erupting interse them, (iv) thereupon it, concluded, of the apposite arbitration clause, borne, in the apt agreement executed inter se Veena Gupta and one Mohinder Nath Sofat, rather warranting availment, by the aggrieved, (v) than her's instituting criminal proceedings against one Mohinder Nath Sofat. Hence the complainant ascribing penal misdemeanor(s) against, one Mohinder Nath Sofat, was dismissed, it being not maintainable. The complainant being aggrieved, by the pronouncement, made by the learned Judicial Magistrate concerned hence preferred a revision petition therefrom, before the revisional Court. However, the latter Court affirmed the order of the learned trial Court. The complainant being aggrieved, has instituted the instant petition under, Section 482 Cr. P.C. before this Court. The Hon'ble Apex Court has in a judgement reported in State of Orissa and others Vs. Ujjal Kumar Burdhan, 2012 4 SCC 547 , relevant paragraphs whereof are extracted hereinafter:-

(2.) In the light of the above, the reason assigned, by the Courts below qua (i) with an arbitration clause, existing, in the relevant contract, executed inter se Veena Gupta and Mohinder Lal Sofat, with, portrayal(s) therein, of, breach(s) of contracts, being settleable besides resolvable, through, each availing the remedy(s) of arbitration (ii) AND thereupon the aggrieved being barred to prosecute the derelicting party(s) thereof, is obviously frail. Since the aforesaid reasons, suffer, from a grave legal fallacy, hence the impugned order is set-aside. Revision petition is allowed. The learned trial Magistrate is directed, to, in accordance with law, render, direction(s) upon the I.O. concerned to (i) given investigation(s) thereon hence being not hold (ii) investigate alleged breach(es) of contract by one Mohinder Nath Sofat. (iii) AND also to in accordance with law direct him, to furnish a status report before him AND thereafter pronounce an order in accordance with law.

(3.) Before parting upon an incisive scrutiny of the relevant case law, the only exception vis-vis there being no bar against simultaneity of, occurrence of criminal proceedings, AND of civil proceedings IS (i) verdict(s) recorded by all statutory authorities concerned upon titles AND entitlements of the concerned qua property(ies) of any genre being binding upon criminal Courts, (ii) AND continuation of criminal proceedings qua alike therewith subject matter or qua titles(s) or entitlements(s) vis-vis all property(ies) of any genre being impermissible, till a clinching conclusive verdict, emanates from the Apex Court (ii) Conspicuously, when verdicts of all statutory authorities concerned qua titles or entitlements vis-vis property(ies) of any genre, emanate, prior to commencement of criminal proceedings AND before their termination.