GURPURB SINGH Vs. S AUTAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application by the petitioner for quashing an order passed by the learned Magistrate directing the accused to produce certain documents that were in their possession under the provisions of Section 94 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. There is also a prayer in the petition for quashing the proceedings against the petitioners on the ground that the complaint does not disclose any case against them. Lastly the petitioners have prayed that the present case may be stayed till the disposal of the civil suit which is pending between the parties and in which the subject-matter is identical with the allegations in the complaint.

(2.) IN the first place it has been contended by Mr. Sunder Lai that the complaint does not disclose any case against the petitioners and therefore the proceedings against them should be quashed. I am, however, unable to agree with this contention. I have gone through the complaint carefully and 1 find that there are serious allegations in it against the petitioners. Before the learned Magistrate certain witnesses were also examined by the complainant and the learned Magistrate after applying his mind to the evidence on the record as also to the complaint summoned the accused. It is not open to this Court to go into the sufficiency or otherwise of the material that was before the learned Magistrate. It is clearly mentioned in the complaint that the petitioners as trustees of Gurdawara temple had converted to their own use a large part of the properties. It is true that the complaint contains rather vague allegations and is not very happily worded. The fact, however, that a complaint is defective is no ground for holding that no en e at all has been made out by the complainant in his complaint. The question regarding the comments which the accused have to make on the complaint would arise only after the evidence is led before the Court and at the time when the Court decides as to whether a charge should be framed against them.

(3.) IT was then contended by Mr. Sunder Lai that the case should be stayed pending the civil suit. It appears, however, that the accused made a prayer to this effect to the learned Magistrate, who has, however, not yet passed any orders on this prayer and has asked the petitioners to produce the necessary documents in order to enable him to come to a decision as to whether a case for stay has been made out. I may point that under the provisions of Section 344, Criminal P. C. the Magistrate has ample jurisdiction to stay the criminal case if he thinks that the subject matter of the criminal and the civil case is identical and if the suit is proceeding instituted prior to the criminal case. Under these circumstances I am most reluctant to exercise my discretion without giving the learned Magistrate an opportunity to exercise his discretion under the provisions of Section 344 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners is, therefore, overruled.