G.K.Mathur, J. - (1.) BY means of this petition the petitioners pray for a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 24th March, 1986 passed by the II Addl. Munsif, Etah in Original Suit No. 323 of 1985 and the revisional order dated 9-10-1987 of the I Additional District Judge, Etah in Civil Revision No. 27 of 1986 and for a direction to the court below to proceed with the suit.
(2.) SRI A. S. Diwakar, Advocate, has put in appearance on behalf of Ashok Kumar, respondent no. 2, and made a statement the he would not file counter-affidavit on behalf of his client and has no objection if the writ petition is disposed of today finally. Suit No. 323 of 1985 was instituted on 22-5-1985 by the petitioners and Shobharam, respondent no. 3, in the court of Munsif Etah, against Ashok Kumar respondent no. 2. for cancellation of sale deed dated 22-4-1985 alleged to have been executed by the petitioners in favour of Ashok Kumar, on the ground of impersonation. The petitioners had also filed a criminal complaint against Ashok Kumar on 3rd of May, 1985, in the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Etah, for the offences punishable under sections 417, 420, 464, 468 and 109 of the Indian Penal Code. The trial court vide its order dated 24-3-1986 stayed the suit till the disposal of the criminal case, against which a revision was filed before the District Judge, Etah which was also dismissed on 9-10-1987. Hence this writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the trial court made an error apparent on the face of record in staying the suit filed by the petitioners on the ground that civil courts should stay proceedings of a suit, if the parties to the said suit are also involved in a criminal trial on the same facts. In support of this argument the learned counsel submits that in the present case the previous proceedings being criminals they do not operate as res judicata on the civil suit and hence the civil suit could not be stayed.
(3.) SRI A. S. Diwakar, on the other hand, submitted that the civil suit cannot proceed against Askok Kumar, respondent no. 2, because an accused in a criminal case cannot be compelled to disclose bis defence, and he has a right as accused to remain silent. This argument has been built up on the provisions contained in Article 20 (3) of the Constitution and reliance has been placed on the case of Smt. Nandini Satpathy v. P. L. Dani and another (AIR 1978 SC 1025). SRI Diwakar has urged that Ashok Kumar will be called up on to enter on his defence in the suit and would be subject to cross- examination which would amount to compelled testimony' and would be violative of Article 20 (3) of the Constitution. It is a far-fetched argument. SRI Ashok Kumar has already filed his written statement in the suit, a copy whereof is Annexure 'II', to the writ petition. In the said written statement he has specifically pleaded that the sale deed was executed by the petitioners and there was no element of impersonation. On the basis of the said written statement, issues have already been framed in the suit. In the case of Smt. Nandhi Satpathy v. P. L Dani (Supra), the prohibitive sweep of Article 0 (3) of the Constitution and the provisions of section 161, CrPC are held to substantially cover the same area. So far as the police investigation is concerned, it is further explained in the aforesaid ruling that the pharace "compelled testimony" must be read as evidence procured not merely by physical threats or violence but by psychic torture, atmospheric pressure, environmental coercion, tiring interrogative poloxity, overbearing and intimidatory methods and the like not legal penalty for violation. So, the legal perils following upon refusal to answer, or answer truthfully, cannot be regarded as compulsion within the meaning of Article 20 (3) of the Constitution." It is further laid down in the said case that Article 20 (3) of the Constitution strikes at confessions and self-incriminations procured by duress but leaves untouched other relevant facts and merely because the accused fancied that by such answer, he would incriminate himself, he could not claim the privilege of silence. As such, the case referred to by the learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 is of no help to him. The law laid down therein hardly supports the contention of the learned counsel for respondent no 2, rather it negatives it. The order of the trial court staying the proceedings of the civil suit till the disposal of the criminal case has infringed upon the legal right of the petitioner to seek his remedy in the civil court and is, therefore, erroneous in law.;