Madhya Pradesh High Court
Suraj Singh Dhakad vs Smt Shriwati Dhakad on 19 November, 2024
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: G. S. Ahluwalia
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-GWL:20653
1 MCRC-23628-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G. S. AHLUWALIA
ON THE 19 th OF NOVEMBER, 2024
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 23628 of 2024
SURAJ SINGH DHAKAD AND OTHERS
Versus
SMT SHRIWATI DHAKAD AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Amit Lahoti - Advocate for applicants.
Smt. Padmashri Agrawal- Advocate for respondent No.1.
Shri Ajay Kumar Nirankari - Public Prosecutor for respondent/State.
ORDER
This application, under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed against the
order dated 19.05.2022 passed by Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Shivpuri (M.P.)
in Criminal Revision No.71/2021 thereby affirming the order dated 09.04.2021
passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pohri, District Shivpuri (M.P.) in
Criminal Case No.161/2021 by which cognizance for offence under Sections 420,
120B/34 of IPC has been taken against applicants.
2. It is the case of respondent No.1 that she is the permanent resident of
village Rasera, Police Station Bairad, District Shivpuri (M.P.). She was informed
by Assistant Secretary of Gram Panchayat Rasera that a house has been sanctioned
in her name and accordingly she should get herself registered so that the amount
can be paid to her. Accordingly, Suraj Singh Dhakad took her to Pohri for getting
the house as well as crop registered. Rajendra Prajapati, Dharmendra and Naresh
Dhakad (applicants No.3, 4 and 5) also accompanied her. Since respondent No.1 is
an illiterate lady who does not know even to sign, therefore applicants took her to
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN
DHARKAR
Signing time: 11/26/2024
7:07:32 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-GWL:20653
2 MCRC-23628-2024
an office on two occasions and she was informed that her house has been
sanctioned which would be constructed by Suraj Singh Dhakad and she was also
instructed that in case if the officer asks anything to her then she should inform
him that she has received the amount. Accordingly, her thumb impressions on
various documents were obtained. Ultimately, it was found that applicants have
got the sale-deed executed in respect of land belonging to respondent No.1. After
sometime, applicants No.1 and 2, namely, Suraj Singh Dhakad and Reena Dhakad
informed that they have purchased the land belonging to respondent No.1 and have
also got their names mutated in the revenue records, whereas respondent No.1 has
neither executed any sale deed nor has alienated her land. When she resisted to the
claim of applicants No.1 and 2 then she was threatened by them. It was alleged
that under the pretext of sanctioning of a house, a sale-deed in respect of Survey
No.780/1, 777/1, 703/1, 702/1, 687/1, 639/1, 7/1 and 781 total area 16-17 Bigha of
land has been got mutated in a fraudulent manner. It was further submitted that
respondent No.1 had challenged the mutation order of applicants No.1 and 2 which
was allowed, however, appeal filed by applicants No.1 and 2 was allowed by
Commissioner, Gwalior Division Gwalior.
3. Challenging the order of taking cognizance, it is submitted by counsel for
applicants that the order of mutation was set aside by High Court of Madhya
Pradesh at Gwalior by order dated 06.12.2022 passed in M.P. No.2828/2021 and
Supreme Court by order dated 10.11.2023 passed in S.L.P. (Civil) Diary No(S)
42723 of 2023 has directed the parties to maintain status quo . It is further
submitted that civil suit is pending and accordingly, it is submitted that the
cognizance of criminal case is bad in law.
4 . Per contra , application is vehemently opposed by counsel for the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN
DHARKAR
Signing time: 11/26/2024
7:07:32 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-GWL:20653
3 MCRC-23628-2024
respondents.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
6. So far as the mutation entries are concerned, they are meant for fiscal
purposes. Mutation entries are not the documents title. If the dispute with regard to
mutation is pending, that would not mean that the civil suit or the criminal
proceedings cannot proceed further.
7. So far as the submission made by counsel for applicants that since a civil
suit with regard to the same sale deed is pending is concerned, it is suffice to
mention here that the civil suit as well as criminal proceedings on the similar
allegations can proceed simultaneously.
The Supreme court in the case of Kishan Singh (Dead) Through LRs. v.
Gurpal Singh and Others, reported in (2010) 8 SCC 775 has held as under:
“16. In Iqbal Singh Marwah v. Meenakshi Marwah this Court held as
under : (SCC pp. 389-90, para 32)“32. Coming to the last contention that an effort should be made to
avoid conflict of findings between the civil and criminal courts, it
is necessary to point out that the standard of proof required in the
two proceedings is entirely different. 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.”
17. In Syed Askari Hadi Ali Augustine Imam v. State (Delhi Admn.)
this Court considered all the earlier judgments on the issue and held that
while deciding the case in Karam Chand, this Court failed to take note
of the Constitution Bench judgment in M.S. Sheriff 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 v. Daya
Sapra, wherein it has been held by this Court that the decision in Karam
Chand stood overruled in K.G. Premshanker.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN
DHARKAR
Signing time: 11/26/2024
7:07:32 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-GWL:20653
4 MCRC-23628-2024
18. Thus, in view of the above, the law on the issue stands crystallised
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 Evidence
Act, 1872, dealing with the relevance of previous judgments in
subsequent cases may be taken into consideration.”
The Supreme Court in the case of Syed Askari Hadi Ali Augustine Imam
And Another Vs. State (Delhi Administration) and Another reported in (2009) 5
SCC 528 has held as under :
“24. If primacy is to be given to a criminal proceeding, indisputably, the
civil suit must be determined on its own merit, keeping in view the
evidence brought before it and not in terms of the evidence brought in
the criminal proceeding. The question came up for consideration in
K.G. Premshanker v. Inspector of Police wherein this Court inter alia
held: (SCC p. 97, paras 30-31)
“30. What emerges from the aforesaid discussion is–(1) the
previous judgment which is final can be relied upon as provided
under Sections 40 to 43 of the Evidence Act; (2) in civil suits
between the same parties, principle of res judicata may apply; (3)
in a criminal case, Section 300 CrPC makes provision that once a
person is convicted or acquitted, he may not be tried again for
the same offence if the conditions mentioned therein are satisfied;
(4) if the criminal case and the civil proceedings are for the same
cause, judgment of the civil court would be relevant if conditions
of any of Sections 40 to 43 are satisfied, but it cannot be said that
the same would be conclusive except as provided in Section 41.
Section 41 provides which judgment would be conclusive proof of
what is stated therein.
31. Further, the judgment, order or decree passed in a previous
civil proceeding, if relevant, as provided under Sections 40 and 42
or other provisions of the Evidence Act then in each case, the court
has to decide to what extent it is binding or conclusive with regard
to the matter(s) decided therein. Take for illustration, in a case of
alleged trespass by A on B’s property, B filed a suit for declaration
of its title and to recover possession from A and suit is decreed.
Thereafter, in a criminal prosecution by B against A for trespass,
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN
DHARKAR
Signing time: 11/26/2024
7:07:32 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-GWL:20653
5 MCRC-23628-2024
judgment passed between the parties in civil proceedings would be
relevant and the court may hold that it conclusively establishes the
title as well as possession of B over the property. In such case, A
may be convicted for trespass. The illustration to Section 42
which is quoted above makes the position clear. Hence, in each
and every case, the first question which would require
consideration is– whether judgment, order or decree is relevant,
if relevant–its effect. It may be relevant for a limited purpose,
such as, motive or as a fact in issue. This would depend upon the
facts of each case.”
25. It is, however, significant to notice that the decision of this Court in
Karam Chand Ganga Prasad v. Union of India, wherein it was
categorically held that the decisions of the civil courts will be binding
on the criminal courts but the converse is not true, was overruled,
stating: (K.G. Premshanker case, SCC p. 98, para 33)
“33. Hence, the observation made by this Court in V.M. Shah case
that the finding recorded by the criminal court stands superseded
by the finding recorded by the civil court is not
correct enunciation of law. Further, the general observations made
in Karam Chand case are in context of the facts of the case stated
above. The Court was not required to consider the earlier decision
of the Constitution Bench in M.S. Sheriff case as well as Sections
40 to 43 of the Evidence Act.”
Axiomatically, if judgment of a civil court is not binding on a criminal
court, a judgment of a criminal court will certainly not be binding on a
civil court.
26. We have noticed hereinbefore that Section 43 of the Evidence Act
categorically states that judgments, orders or decrees, other than those
mentioned in Sections 40, 41 and 42 are irrelevant, unless the existence
of such judgment, order or decree, is a fact in issue, or is relevant under
some other provisions of the Act. No other provision of the Evidence
Act or for that matter any other statute has been brought to our notice.
27. Another Constitution Bench of this Court had the occasion to
consider a similar question in Iqbal Singh Marwah v. Meenakshi
Marwah wherein it was held: (SCC p. 387, para 24)
“24. There is another consideration which has to be kept in mind.
Sub-section (1) of Section 340 CrPC contemplates holding of a
preliminary enquiry. Normally, a direction for filing of
a complaint is not made during the pendency of the proceeding
before the court and this is done at the stage when the proceeding
is concluded and the final judgment is rendered. Section 341
provides for an appeal against an order directing filing of the
complaint. The hearing and ultimate decision of the appeal is
bound to take time. Section 343(2) confers a discretion upon a
court trying the complaint to adjourn the hearing of the case if it is
brought to its notice that an appeal is pending against the decision
arrived at in the judicial proceeding out of which the matter
has arisen. In view of these provisions, the complaint case may not
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN
DHARKAR
Signing time: 11/26/2024
7:07:32 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-GWL:20653
6 MCRC-23628-2024
proceed at all for decades specially in matters arising out of civil
suits where decisions are challenged in successive appellate fora
which are time-consuming. It is also to be noticed that there is no
provision of appeal against an order passed under Section
343(2), whereby hearing of the case is adjourned until the decision
of the appeal. These provisions show that, in reality, the procedure
prescribed for filing a complaint by the court is such that it may
not fructify in the actual trial of the offender for an unusually long
period. Delay in prosecution of a guilty person comes to his
advantage as witnesses become reluctant to give evidence and the
evidence gets lost. This important consideration dissuades us from
accepting the broad interpretation sought to be placed upon clause
(b)(ii).”
28. Relying inter alia on M.S. Sheriff, it was furthermore held: (Iqbal
Singh Marwah case, SCC pp. 389-90, para 32)
“32. Coming to the last contention that an effort should be made to
avoid conflict of findings between the civil and criminal courts, it
is necessary to point out that the standard of proof required in the
two proceedings are entirely different. 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.”
29. The question yet again came up for consideration in P. Swaroopa
Rani v. M. Hari Narayana, wherein it was categorically held: (SCC p.
769, para 11)
“11. 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.”
The Supreme Court in the case of Prem Raj Vs. Poonamma Menon and
Another decided on 02.04.2024 in S.L.P.(Cr.) No.9778/2018 has held as under :
“9. In advancing his submissions, Mr. K. Parameshwar, learned
counsel appearing for the appellant, placed reliance on certain
authorities of this Court. In M/s. Karam Chand Ganga Prasad and Anr.
vs. Union of India and Ors.(1970)3 SCC 694, this Court observed that:
“…….It is a well-established principle of law that
the decisions of the civil courts are binding on the
criminal courts. The converse is not true.”
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN
DHARKAR
Signing time: 11/26/2024
7:07:32 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-GWL:20653
7 MCRC-23628-2024
In K.G. Premshanker vs. Inspector of Police and Anr, (2002)8 SCC
87, a Bench of three learned Judges observed that, following the M.S.
Sheriff vs. State of Madras, AIR 1954 SC 397, 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.
10. We notice that this Court in Vishnu Dutt Sharma vs. Daya Sapra
(Smt.) (2009)13 SCC 729, had observed as under:
“26. It is, however, significant to notice a decision of this
Court in Karam Chand Ganga Prasad v. Union of India
(1970) 3 SCC 694, wherein it was categorically held that the
decisions of the civil court will be binding on the criminal
courts but the converse is not true, was overruled therein…”
This Court in Satish Chander Ahuja vs. Sneha Ahuja (2021)1 SCC 414,
considered a numerous precedents, including Premshanker (supra) and
Vishnu Dutt Sharma (supra), to opine that there is no embargo for a
civil court to consider the evidence led in the criminal proceedings.
The issue has been laid to rest by a
Constitution Bench of this Court in Iqbal Singh
Marwah vs. Meenakshi Marwah, (2005)4 SCC
370 :
“32. Coming to the last contention that
an effort should be made to avoid conflict
of findings between the civil and criminal
courts, it is necessary to point out that
the standard of proof required in the
two proceedings are entirely different.
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.
While examining a similar contention in
an appeal against an order directing filing
of a complaint under Section 476 of theSignature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN
DHARKAR
Signing time: 11/26/2024
7:07:32 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-GWL:206538 MCRC-23628-2024
old Code, the following observations
made by a Constitution Bench in M.S.
Sheriff v. State of Madras [1954 SCR 1144:
AIR 1954 SC 397: 1954 Cri LJ 1019] give a
complete answer to the problem posed: (AIR
p. 399, paras 15-16)“15. As between the civil and
the criminal proceedings, we are of
the opinion that the criminal
matters should be given precedence.
There is some difference of opinion in
the High Courts of India on this
point. No hard-and-fast rule can be laid
down but we do 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.
16. 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.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN
DHARKAR
Signing time: 11/26/2024
7:07:32 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-GWL:20653
9 MCRC-23628-2024
This, however, is not a hard-and-fast rule. Special
considerations obtaining in any particular case might
make some other course more expedient and just. For
example, the civil case or the other criminal proceeding
may be so near its end as to make it inexpedient to stay
it in order to give precedence to a prosecution ordered
under Section 476. But in this case we are of the view
that the civil suits should be stayed till the criminal
proceedings have finished.”
(Emphasis Supplied)”
Thus, it is clear that findings recorded by the Civil Court are not binding on
Criminal Court. Under these circumstances, the order of taking cognizance cannot
be quashed merely on the ground that a civil suit is pending. If a forged sale deed
has been executed then it involves criminal ingredients also.
8. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, this Court
is of the considered opinion that the courts below have rightly held that there is a
sufficient ground for taking cognizance of the complaint.
9. Accordingly, order dated 19.05.2022 passed by I Additional Sessions
Judge, Shivpuri (M.P.) in Criminal Revision No.71/2021 and order dated
09.04.2021 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pohri, District Shivpuri
(M.P.) in Criminal Case No.161/2021 are hereby affirmed.
10. The application fails and is hereby dismissed.
(G. S. AHLUWALIA)
JUDGEpd
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN
DHARKAR
Signing time: 11/26/2024
7:07:32 AM