LexKISHAN SINGH (D) THROUGH LRS. versus GURPAL SINGH & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2010) 10 S.C.R. 16 KISHAN SINGH (D) THROUGH LRS. v. GURPAL SINGH & ORS. (Criminal Appeal No. 1500 of 2010) AUGUST 12, 2010 [P.. SATHASIVAM AND DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, JJ.] CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973: s.482 - Order of High Court quashing criminal c proceedings, relying upon the finding of civil court on the same issue as involved in the criminal proceedings, in respect of the same subject matter- HELD: Is not sustainable - The findings of fact recorr:Jed by civil court do not have any bearing so far as the criminal case is concerned and vice-versa - However, 0 in the instant case, the complainant having approached the civil court and failed, filing of the complaint by him, pending his civil appeal, with inordinate delay without any plausible explanation and with the. sole intention of harassing the otherparty amounted to an abuse of the process of Jaw and, therefore, the order of High Court, though not sustainable in law, is not E interfered with - Penal Code, 1860- ss.42013231467146814 711 120-8 - Practice and Procedure - Simultaneous civil and criminal proceedings - Administration of justice - Abuse of the process of law - De/aylLaches. ' F An agreement to sell the suit land was executed on 4.1.1988 by the owner, namely, 'KL' in favour of respondents 1 to 4, to whom the land had already been mortgaged. Since the sale deed was not executed by the stipulated date i.e. 10.6.1989, the respondents filed a suit for specific performance and pursuant to the decree dated G 8.5.1996, passed in the said suit, the sale deed was executed in favour of respondents 1 to 4 on 17.5.1996. Meanwhile, the father of the appellants also filed on 6.2.1996 a suit for specific performance against the said H 16 KISHAN SINGH (D) THROUGH L.RS. v. GURPAL 17 SINGH & ORS. 'KL' stating that he had executed on 22.10.1988 an A agreement to sell in his favour stipulating that the sale - deed would be executed and registered by 15.6.1989. He filed another suit seeking cancellation/setting aside the decree dated 8.5.1996, which was dismissed on 10.6.2002, and consequently he filed a regular first appeal. Thereafter, B he filed an FIR on 22.7 .2002 against the respondents alleging commission of offences punishable u/ss 420/423/ 467/468/120-B IPC. On the petition filed by the respondents, the High Court quashed the FIR and the consequent criminal proceedings. · c In the instant appeal the question for consideratiQll before the Cou'rt was: "whether criminal proceedings can be quasbed by the High Court relying upon a finding of civil court on an issue involved in criminal proceeciings in respect of the same subject matter." ,, ' D Disposing of the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1. 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 E · 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 F same subject matter; and both the cases have to be decided on the basis ofthe evidence adduced therein. However, there may be cases where the provisions of ss. 41 to 43 of the Evidence Act, 1872, dealing with the relevance of previous.judgments in subsequent cases G may be taken into consideration. [para 19] [26-F-H; 27-A] M.S. Sherrif Vs. The State of Madras & Ors., 1954 SCR 1229 =AIR 1954 SC 397; KG. Premshankar Vs. Inspector of Police & Anr., 2002 (2) Suppl. SCR 350 =AIR 2002 SC 3372; Iqbal Singh Marwah & Anr. Vs. Meenakshi H 18 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 10 S.C.R. A Marwah & Anr., 2005 (2) SCR 708 = (2005) 4 SCC 370; P. Swaroopa Rani Vs. M. Hari Narayana alias Hari Babu, 2008 (3) $CR 900 ~ AIR 2008 SC 1884; Syed AksariHadi Ali Augustine Imam & Anr. Vs. State (Delhi Admn) & Anr., 2009 (3) SCR 1017 = (2009) 5 SCC 528; and Vishnu Dutt Sharma 8 Vs. Daya Prasad, 2009 (7) SCR 977 = (2009) 13 SCC 729, relied on. Mis Karamchand Ganga Pershad & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors., AIR 1971 SC 1244, stood overruled C V.M. Shah Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr., 1995 (3) Suppl. SCR 79 = (1995) 5 SCC 767 - disapproved. Emperor Vs. Khwaja Nazair Ahmad, AIR 1945 PC 18, referred to. 1.2. In cases
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.