TMI Blog2010 (8) TMI 888X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eedings can be quashed by the High Court relying upon a finding of Civil Court on an issue involved in criminal proceedings in respect of the same subject matter. 4. Facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that one Kishori Lal executed an Agreement to Sell dated 4.1.1988 in favour of Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 for land measuring 114 Kanals, 2 Marlas situate in the revenue estate of Mauza Jadali, Tehsil Khanna, Punjab, at the rate of ₹ 11000/- per bigha. Kishori Lal had received a sum of ₹ 1 Lakh as Earnest Money from the said respondents. The said land had already been mortgaged with the said respondents for ₹ 52000/-. As per the terms of the said Agreement dated 4.1.1988, the sale deed was to be executed and registered by 10th June, 1989. Kishori Lal entered an Agreement to Sell dated 22.10.1988 with Kishan Singh, predecessor-in-interest of the appellants, in respect of the same land at the rate of ₹ 15300/- per bigha and received a sum of ₹ 54000/- as earnest money. As per the said agreement, the sale was to be executed and registered by 15.06.1989. 5. Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 filed suit No. 60 of 1989 against Kishori Lal in Civil Court, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ersa. The High Court committed a grave error in quashing the FIR only on the basis of findings of fact recorded by the Civil Court. 10. Per contra, Sh. Abhinav Ramkrishna, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, has vehemently opposed the appeal contending that Kishan Singh filed the FIR at a much belated stage, i.e. after dismissal of the civil suit by the Trial Court on 10.06.2002. In case, the agreement in their favour provided that sale deed was to be executed by 15th June, 1989, there could be no justification for them to wait and file suit No. 81/1996 for specific performance on 6.2.1996. Thus, FIR has been filed with inordinate delay of about 14 years and even if, it is presumed that they were not aware of pendency of suit No. 60/1989. Kishan Singh had become fully aware of all the relevant facts at the time of filing the suit no. 1075 of 1996. There is no explanation of delay even after 1996. Thus, the Judgment and Order of the High Court does not warrant any interference. The appeal lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. 11. We have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The issue as to whether ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... independent tenancy rights from the principal landlord and, therefore, the decree for eviction was negatived. Until that finding is duly considered by the appellate court after weighing the evidence afresh and if it so warranted reversed, the findings bind the parties. The findings, recorded by the criminal court, stand superseded by the findings recorded by the civil court. Thereby, the findings of the civil court get precedence over the findings recorded by the trial court, in particular, in summary trial for offences like Section 630. The mere pendency of the appeal does not have the effect of suspending the operation of the decree of the trial Court and neither the finding of the civil court gets disturbed nor the decree becomes inoperative. 15. The correctness of the aforesaid judgment in V.M. Shah (supra) was doubted by this Court and the case was referred to a larger Bench in K.G. Premshankar Vs. Inspector of Police Anr., AIR 2002 SC 3372. In the said case, the Judgment in V.M. Shah (supra) was not approved. While deciding the case, this Court placed reliance upon the Judgment of the Privy Council in Emperor Vs. Khwaja Nazair Ahmad, AIR 1945 PC 18 wherein it has been h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ourt failed to take note of the Constitution Bench Judgment in M.S. Sherrif (supra) and, therefore, it remains per incuriam and does not lay down the correct law. A similar view has been reiterated by this Court in Vishnu Dutt Sharma Vs. Daya Prasad, (2009) 13 SCC 729, wherein it has been held by this Court that the decision in Karamchand (supra) stood overruled in K.G. Premshankar (supra). 19. Thus, in view of the above, the law on the issue stands crystallized to the effect that the findings of fact recorded by the Civil Court do not have any bearing so far as the criminal case is concerned and vice-versa. Standard of proof is different in civil and criminal cases. In civil cases it is preponderance of probabilities while in criminal cases it is proof beyond reasonable doubt. There is neither any statutory nor any legal principle that findings recorded by the court either in civil or criminal proceedings shall be binding between the same parties while dealing with the same subject matter and both the cases have to be decided on the basis of the evidence adduced therein. However, there may be cases where the provisions of Sections 41 to 43 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ter thought or had given a coloured version of events. In such cases the court should carefully examine the facts before it for the reason that a frustrated litigant who failed to succeed before the Civil Court may initiate criminal proceedings just to harass the other side with mala fide intentions or the ulterior motive of wreaking vengeance on the other party. Chagrined and frustrated litigants should not be permitted to give vent to their frustrations by cheaply invoking the jurisdiction of the criminal court. The court proceedings ought not to be permitted to degenerate into a weapon of harassment and persecution. In such a case, where an FIR is lodged clearly with a view to spite the other party because of a private and personal grudge and to enmesh the other party in long and arduous criminal proceedings, the court may take a view that it amounts to an abuse of the process of law in the facts and circumstances of the case. (vide : Chandrapal Singh Ors. Vs. Maharaj Singh Anr., AIR 1982 SC 1238; State of Haryana Ors. Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal Ors., AIR 1992 SC 604; G. Sagar Suri Anr. Vs. State of U.P. Ors., AIR 2000 SC 754; and Gorige Pentaiah Vs. State of A.P. Ors., (2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
