LexK.G. PREMSHANKER versus INSPECTOR OF POLICE AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
,. A B K.G. PREMSHANKER v. INSPECTOR OF POLICE AND ANR. SEPTEMBER 12, 2002 [M.B. SHAH, BISHESHWAR PRASAD SINGH AND H.K. SEMA, JJ.] Evidence Act, 1872-Sections 41, 42 and 43-Relevancy of previous judgments-Suit decided against plaintiff who is complainant in criminal C proceedings-Plea that criminal proceedings be dropped since decision rendered in civil court will prevail-Dismissed by High Court-On appeal held finding recorded by criminal court stands superseded by finding recorded by civil court is not correct enunciation of law-Possibility of conflicting decision in civil and criminal courts not a relevant consideration. D One M filed suit for damages against appellant. Trial Court dismissed the suit. M aJso filed criminal complaint against appellant. Appellant filed application before High Court for quashing the prosecution against him. Appellant contended that as the suit filed for damages against him was dismissed, the decision of civil court would prevail and criminal prosecution against him ought to have been dropped. High Court dismissed E the application. Hence the present appeal. On behalf of the respondents it was contended that the observation in * V.M. Shah's case that "the finding recorded by the criminal court, stands superseded by the finding recorded by the civil court and thereby F the finding of the civil court gets precedence over the finding recor~ed by the criminal court" is against the law laid down by this Court in various decisions. It was further contended that under Evidence Act to what extent judgments given in the previous proceedings are relevant is provided and, therefore, it would be against the law if it is held that as soon as the judgment and decree is passed in a civil suit the criminal proceedings are G required to be dropped if the suit is decided against the plaintiff who is the complainant in the criminal proceedings. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. The previous judgment which is final can be relied upon as H provided under Sections 40 to 43 of the Evidence Act; in civil suits between 350 K.G. PREM SHANKER v. INSPECTOR OF POLICE 351 the same parties, principle of res-judicata _may apply; in a criminal case, Section A 300 Cr.P.C. 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; 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 the Sections 40 to 43 are satisfied, but it cannot be said that the same would B be conclusive except as provided in Se"ction 41. Section 41 provides which judgment would be conclusive proof of what is stated therein. 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 Evidence Act then in each case, Court has to decide to what extent it is binding or conclusive with regard to the matter decided therein. It may C be relevant for a limited purpose, such as, motive or as a fact in issue. This would depend upon facts of each case. 1361-E-G; 362-B] 2. In the instant case, the ratio in **M.S. Sherifrs case is binding, wherein it has been specifically held that no hard and fast rule can be laid down and that possibility of conflicting decision in civil and criminal D Courts is not 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 limited purpose such as sentence or damages". The observations made in * V.M. Shah's case that the finding recorded by the criminal court stands superseded by the E finding recorded by the civil court is not correct enunciation of law. Thus, the civil proceedings as well as the criminal proceedings are required to be decided on the evidence, which may be brought on record by the parties, after remand by High Court. 1362-C-EI **MS Sheriff and Anr. v. State of Madras and Ors., AIR (1954) SC F 397, followed. * V.M. Shah v. State of Maharashlra and Anr., 11995] 5 SCC 767, overruled. Mis. Karam Chand Ganga Prasad and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors., G 11970] 3 sec 694, distinguished. Emperor v. Khwaja Nazir Ahmad, AIR (32) 1945 Privy Council 18; B.N. Kashyap v. Emperor, AIR (1945) Lahore 23 and Kharkan and Ors. v. The State of UP., 119
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.