R.A. Sharma, J. - (1.) SRI Ram Avadh Pandey, Respondent No. 3 made a complaint on 24 -10 -1976 before the Nyay Panchayat Raotipur, Pargana and Tahsil Jamania district Ghazipur against the Petitioner for the offences under Sections 426 and 447 of the Indian Penal Code. The Nayay Panchayat after giving an opportunity of being heard to the Petitioner and Respondent No. 3, by its order dated 30 -6 -1977. held the Petitioner guilty for the offences under the aforesaid provisions and imposed a fine of Rs. 20/ - for both the offences, out of which Rs. 5/ - was ordered to be paid to the complainant -Respondent no 3 Against the order of Nyay Panchayat the Petitioner filed revision before the sub Divisional Magistrate Jamania district Ghazipur under Section 89 of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), which has also been dismissed by order dated 30 -11 -1978. It is against these two orders that the Petitioner has filed this writ petition before this Court.
(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the Petitioner has argued that a dispute about title of the land in question was pending in the Civil Court in the form of a suit filed by the Petitioner, the Nyay Panchayat should not have proceeded with the case and should not have passed the impugned order until the suit was decided In that connection learned Counsel for the Petitioner has placed reliance on the cases of Ram Ekbal Rai v. Jaldhari Pandey : AIR 1972 SC 949, and Babu Ram v. State, (1971) ALJ 4 (DB). Learned Counsel for the Respondent has, on the other hand, argued that the suit filed by the Petitioner did not raise bonafide dispute about the title to the property in question and in fact the suit was filed as a device to escape from the conviction In this connection learned Counsel has invited my attention to the fact that the incident, regarding which compliant was filed by the Respondent No. 3 took place on 24 -10 -1976, whereas the suit was filed by the Petitioner in Civil Court on 30 -10 -1976 i.e. after about six days of the incident The allegations in the complaint, filed by the Respondent No. 3, are that the Petitioner entered the land in dispute by force, removed the bamboos fixed by the Petitioner around his cottage on the said land and further threatened to burn the cottage. Both the parties adduced evidence before the Nyay Panchayat and the Panches after making local inspection held to the effect that the Respondent no 3 is the owner of the land in dispute and the Petitioner has deliberately caused loss to the Respondent No. 3, by removing bamboos etc., after making entry into the land After recording the aforesaid finding the Petitioner was held guilty and a fine of Rs. 20/ - was imposed on him. In the revision filed by the Petitioner, his plea to the effect that as the Civil suit regarding the title of the property in dispute was pending, the Nyay Panchayat had no jurisdiction to proceed with the case, was rejected. The learned Magistrate held that the law does not require that whenever civil suit is filed regarding certain rights to the property, the criminal case, relating to the offence qua the same property, should be stayed. Learned Magistrate has further held that to view of the facts and circumstances of the case the Nyay Panchayat was justified to proceed with the case and impose the fine on the Petitioner.
(3.) UNDER law there is no bar for both, the civil and criminal proceedings, going on simultaneously and the possibility of conflicting decisions of criminal and civil courts have been held to be not relevant consideration in order to decide whether to proceed with both the proceedings or not. The courts have, however, evolved certain principles in order to decide whether both, civil and criminal, proceedings should go on simultaneously or not; the principle being likely embarrassment or likely prejudice by simultaneous prosecution of both civil and criminal cases In accordance with the aforesaid principles, as between civil and criminal proceedings, criminal proceedings are given precedence, the reason being the delay in deciding civil suit and the necessity of expeditious decision in criminal cases. In this connection reference may be made to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of M.S. Sheriff v. State of Madras : AIR 1954 SC 397, relevant extract from which is reproduced below; 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 decision 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 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 every body 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 Section 476.;