- (1.) B. P. Jeevan Reddy, C. J. This revision petition has been referred to a Division Bench by one of us (R. R. K. Trivedi, J. ). The question for consideration is whether further proceedings in the motor accident claim petition be stayed pending disposal of the criminal case.
(2.) THE petitioner is the driver of a truck bearing registration No. UTW 4700. Crime Case No. 230 of 1988 P. S. Raipura, District Banda, was registered against him under Section 307, I. P. C. with the allegation that he attempted to kill Pradeep Singh Sengar, Station House Officer of the said Police Station. After the death of the injured, the offence was converted into one under Section 302, I. P. C. THE allegation, in short, is that the petitioner, while driving the said truck, intentionally hit the motor-cycle, in which Pradeep Singh Sengar was travelling, and caused him serious injuries, which ultimately led to his death. We are told that the case has been committed and is now numbered as session trial No. 94 of 1988 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge, Karvi. THE trial in the Sessions Court has not yet commenced. The heirs and legal representatives of the deceased Police Officer instituted a motor accident claim petition, being claim Petition No. 126/70 of 1988 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Banda, claiming compensation/ damages in a sum of Rs. 80,86,000/- for the death of the said Police Officer. The said amount is claimed under several heads. Respondents in the claim petition are the petitioner here in (Rajaram Garg, impleaded as second respondent), Ram Lal Garg (First respondent/owner of the truck) and the United India Insurance Company, Banda (the insurer/ third respondent ). According to the claimants, second respondent in the claim petition (petitioner in this Civil Revision) intentionally dashed against the motor-cycle, on which the deceased was travelling, with intent to kill him and caused him serious injuries leading to his death. In the claim petition, the revision-petitioner has filed a written statement, wherein he has denied the several allegations made in the claim petition and pleaded further that since he is being prosecuted in a criminal court in respect of the very same transaction, the claim petition, which too involves adjudication of the very same issues, should be stayed. Issues have been framed in the claim petition. Issue No. 5 is to the following effect:- Whether proceedings in the claim are liable to be stayed for the reason mentioned in paragraph 28 of the written statement, i. e. , on account of the pendency of the criminal case? This issue was heard as a preliminary issue and by its order dt. 7-1-1991, the claims Tribunal held that proceedings in the claim petition need not be stayed. The present revision petition is preferred against the said order. Elaborate arguments were addressed to the learned single Judge, who heard the Civil Revision and a number of decided cases cited. Having regard to conflicting views expressed by learned single Judges of this Court, the learned single Judge (one of us i. e. , R. R. K. Trivedi, J.) referred the matter to a larger Bench for an authoritative pronouncement on the appropriate legal position in such a controversy. It is evident that the question involved herein is of general application. Wherever a person is injured by a motor- vehicle, and particularly where it leads to loss of life, a criminal case is almost invariably, instituted whether under Section304a, I. P. C. or other appropriate Section, as the case may be. In most such cases, a claim petition is also filed under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, claiming compensation / damages, against the owner of the vehicle, its driver and the insurer. Same thing has happened here, with this difference that in this case, the allegation, both in the criminal case and the claim petition, is that it is not a case of accident, but a deliberate murder. In the criminal case, the petitioner is sought to be convicted under Section 302, I. P. C. where as in the claim petition, substantial amount of compensation / damages is sought on the very same ground. The question is whether in such cases, proceedings in the claim petition ought to be stayed pending disposal of the criminal case.
(3.) IN law, there is no bar for both the proceedings going on simultaneously. While the criminal prosecution has been launched and is being conducted by the State, the claim petition is instituted by the legal heirs and representatives of the deceased. The judgment in the criminal court would not, be relevant in the claim petition under the Motor Vehicles Act, and certainly not for establishing the fact in issue, by virtue of Sections 40 and 43 of the Evidence Act. Similarly, the judgment in the claim petition would be equally not relevant in the criminal case/ sessions case, and certainly not for establishing the guilt of the accused therein. Courts have, however, evolved certain principles in this behalf, mainly with a view to avoid 'embarrassment' or prejudice, as it may be called. It would be appropriate to refer to some of those decisions. In M. S. Sheriff v. State of Madras, AIR 1954 SC 397, the Supreme Court considered this aspect. In a proceeding under Section 491, Criminal P. C. 1898, the High Court of Madras directed the Deputy Registrar of the High Court to launch a complaint against two Sub-Inspectors under Section 476, Criminal P. C. for perjury punishable under Section 193, I. P. C. Meanwhile, civil suits of damages were filed by the persons who were wrongfully confined by the two Sub-Inspectors. Two other criminal prosecutions under Section 344, I. P. C. (for wrongful confinement) were also launched against the Sub- Inspectors. However, by the time the matter reached the Supreme Court, the two criminal prosecutions were closed. The question before the Supreme Court was whether simultaneous prosecution of the criminal proceedings (in pursuance of the complaint lodged by the High Court) and the civil suits will 'embarrass' the accused and which of the proceedings are to be stayed. It would be appropriate to quote the relevant observations in the judgment (at p. 399): ". . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . We can see that the simultaneous prosecution of the present criminal proceedings out of which the present appeal arises and the civil suits will embarrass the accused. We have, therefore, to determine which should be stayed. 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 Court 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 event relevant, except for certain limited purposes, such as sentence or damages. The only relevant consideration here is the likelihood of embarrassment. 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 dim to trust. 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 S. 476.;