CONFLICTING DECISIONS OF CIVILL COURT AND CRIMINAL COURT

[Mr. M. GOVINDARAJAN]

Civil Courts have their own jurisdiction and hierarchy.  The Criminal Courts also have their own jurisdiction and hierarchy.  Which Court prevails over the other Court if conflicting decisions are arrived at both Courts. 

In KARAM CHAND GANGA PRASAD AND ORS. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA (UOI) AND ORS. - 1970 (10) TMI 85 - SUPREME COURT, the Supreme Court held that the decisions of the civil courts are binding on the criminal courts. The converse is not true.

In K.G. PREMSHANKER VERSUS INSPECTOR OF POLICE AND ANR. - 2002 (9) TMI 849 - SUPREME COURT it was held that no straight-jacket formula could be laid down and conflicting decisions of civil and criminal Courts would not be a relevant consideration except for the limited purpose of sentence or damages.

In VISHNU DUTT SHARMA VERSUS DAYA SAPRA - 2009 (5) TMI 862 - SUPREME COURT it was opined that there is no embargo for a civil court to consider the evidence led in the criminal proceedings.

In IQBAL SINGH MARWAH & ANR. VERSUS MEENAKSHI MARWAH & ANR. - 2005 (3) TMI 750 - SUPREME COURT, the Supreme Court held that Civil cases are decided on the basis of preponderance of evidence, while in a criminal case, the entire burden lies on the prosecution, and proof beyond reasonable doubt has to be given. There is neither any statutory provision nor any legal principle that the findings recorded in one proceeding may be treated as final or binding in the other, as both the cases have to be decided on the basis of the evidence adduced therein.  No hard-and-fast rule can be laid down but the Court did not consider that the possibility of conflicting decisions in the civil and criminal courts is a relevant consideration. The law envisages such an eventuality when it expressly refrains from making the decision of one court binding on the other, or even relevant, except for certain limited purposes, such as sentence or damages. The only relevant consideration here is the likelihood of embarrassment.

Another factor which weighs with us is that a civil suit often drags on for years and it is undesirable that a criminal prosecution should wait till everybody concerned has forgotten all about the crime. The public interests demand that criminal justice should be swift and sure; that the guilty should be punished while the events are still fresh in the public mind and that the innocent should be absolved as early as is consistent with a fair and impartial trial. Another reason is that it is undesirable to let things slide till memories have grown too dim to trust.  Further it was held that the civil suits should be stayed till the criminal proceedings have finished.

In PREM RAJ VERSUS POONAMMA MENON & ANR. - 2024 (4) TMI 218 - SUPREME COURT, the appellant borrowed Rs. 2 lakhs from the complainant.  The petitioner promised that the said amount would be paid on demand.  The complainant made a demand to the appellant for the payment.  The appellant issued a cheque dated 30.06.2002.  The complainant sent the said cheque to the bank for encashment through post with a covering letter dated 24.09.2002.  The said cheque was dishonored due to insufficient funds and payments stopped by drawer.

The complainant sent a notice to the appellant on 22.12.2002 for making immediate payment.  Since no action has been taken by the appellant the complainant filed a criminal complaint against the appellant.

In the meanwhile the appellant filed a civil case in OS No. 1338 of 2002 before the Additional District Munsif, Irinjalakuda.  In this suit the appellant impleaded five persons as defendants including the Branch Manager, South Indian Bank.  He made the following prayers before the Court-

• to declare cheque No.386543 of the South Indian Bank Limited, Kathikudam, as a security cheque;
• to issue mandatory injunction directing the first  defendant to return the said cheque; and
• to issue a permanent prohibitory injunction restraining defendants 1  to 4 named hereinabove from taking any steps to encash the said cheque.

The Additional District Munsif decreed the suit in favor of the appellant on 11.04.2003.    The suit against the Branch Manager was dismissed and decreed against the other four defendants.   The Defendant No. 1 in the said suit filed an appeal before the Subordinate Judge, Irinjalakuda.  The Subordinate Judge confirmed the judgment of District Munsif and dismissed the appeal filed by the first defendant. 

In the criminal case filed by the complainant,  the Trial Court convicted the appellant to undergo imprisonment for one year and also directed the appellant to pay compensation of Rs.2 lakhs.  In default of the said compensation the appellant would undergo further simple imprisonment for six months.   The Trial Court observed that the decree passed by the District Munsif would not be binding on the criminal Court.  The criminal court is not subordinate to Civil Court.  The Civil Court cannot grant injunction order and the hands of the criminal court cannot be fettered.

Appeal was filed by the appellant. The First Appellate Authority considered the issue as to whether the cheque was issued against a legally enforced debt thereby attracting the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.  The First Appellant decided the issue against the appellant and confirmed the conviction.

The appellant filed a revision petition before the High Court.  The High Court also dismissed the revision petition holding that no perversity could be indicated in the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and First Appellate Authority.

The appellant filed an appeal against the order of High Court before the Supreme Court.  The Supreme Court considered the issue to be decided is as to whether a criminal proceeding can be initiated and the accused therein held guilty with natural consequences thereof to follow, in connection with a transaction, in respect of which a decree by a competent Court of civil jurisdiction, already stands passed.

The Supreme Court expressed its astonishment as to how a civil as well as criminal course could be adopted by the parties involved, in respect of the very same issue and transaction.   The Supreme Court observed that sentence and damages would be excluded from the conflict of decisions in civil and criminal jurisdictions of the Courts.  In the present case, considering that the Court in criminal jurisdiction has imposed both sentence and damages, the ratio of the above-referred decision dictates that the Court in criminal jurisdiction would be bound by the civil Court having declared the cheque, the subject matter of dispute, to be only for the purposes of security.  The Supreme Court directed to refund the damages imposed on the appellant.

The judgment and order passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Thrissur, in Criminal Appeal, which upheld the conviction, as handed down by the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate which came to affirmed by the High Court of Kerela is quashed and set aside by the Supreme Court.