Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 2008 (3) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2008 (3) TMI 736 - SC - Indian LawsHigh Court stayed the proceedings - Suit for specific performance of the contract - no deed of sale executed in terms of the agreement - Court quashed a proceeding under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as the matter pending before it arose out of a civil proceedings - HELD THAT:- The High Court indisputably is a final court of fact. It may go into the correctness or otherwise of the findings arrived at by the learned Trial Judge. A fortiori it can set aside the findings of the court below that the Ex. A.15 is a forged document or its authenticity could not be proved by the respondent. It is, however, well-settled that in a given case, civil proceedings and criminal proceedings can proceed simultaneously. Whether civil proceedings or criminal proceedings shall be stayed depends upon the fact and circumstances of each case. [See M.S. Sheriff v. State of Madras [1954 (3) TMI 76 - SUPREME COURT] and Iqbal Singh Marwah v. Meenakshi Marwah [2005 (3) TMI 750 - SUPREME COURT]. It is furthermore trite that Section 195(1)(b)(ii) of the Code of Criminal Procedure would not be attracted where a forged document has been filed. It was so held by a Constitution Bench of this Court in Iqbal Singh Marwah [2005 (3) TMI 750 - SUPREME COURT] The impugned order, therefore, cannot be sustained which is set aside accordingly. Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) is allowed. We, however, are of the opinion that the High Court should be requested to hear the appeal as early as possible and preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. This, however, may not be taken to mean that we have entered into the merit of the matter. It goes without saying that the respondent shall be at liberty to take recourse to such a remedy which is available to him in law. We have interfered with the impugned order only because in law simultaneous proceedings of a civil and a criminal case is permissible. Hence, we are of the opinion that the interim order dated 24.05.2006 as modified by an order dated 17.07.2006 need not be interfered with particularly in view of the fact that according to the respondent it had made a payment of ₹ 35,47,000/- besides the disputed payment of ₹ 4,03,000/- and made deposits of ₹ 67,54,088/-. Therefore, Civil Appeal arising out of SLP is dismissed.
|