- (1.) Present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of FIR No.217 dated 26.4.2008, registered at Police Station Sadar, Amritsar, under Sections 448, 506, 427, 511, 380, 148, 149 IPC, Annexure P-27. Along with quashing of the FIR, it is prayed that order framing charge, Annexure P-29, dated 6.10.2009 and charge sheet Annexure P-30, dated 6.10.2009, whereby the petitioner was charged for offence under Sections 380, 448, 427 and 506 IPC be quashed. Counsel for the petitioner has made the following submissions :- a) that the matter is pending before the civil court and, therefore, till the civil court gives its finding regarding ownership, title and possession, criminal court cannot proceed with the present FIR; b) that from the various documents annexed with this petition, i.e., jamabandi, site plan, sale deed, electricity bill, sewerage charges, water supply bill, this Court should infer possession of the petitioner and quash the FIR and the charges framed against the petitioner; c) that even though charges were framed in October 2009 and petitioner has not availed the remedy of revision, therefore, even after the expiry of period of limitation for filing revision, this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can quash the proceedings; d) that Aksh-Shizra, electricity bills, water bills and sewerage bills are per se admissible and they should be taken into consideration; e) that the jamabandi from which ownership of the complainant can be inferred, bears different khasra numbers.
(2.) So far as the first argument is concerned, i.e., till the civil court decides the question of title and possession, criminal court should not proceed with the matter, this controversy has been settled by a Five-Judges Bench of the Supreme Court in M.S. Sherif and another v. State of Madras & Ors., 1954 AIR(SC) 397, wherein it was held that as between civil and criminal proceedings, criminal matter should be given precedence. The following observations of the Hon'ble Supreme are required to be noticed :- "15. 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 the Court binding on the other, or even relevant, except for certain limited purposes, such as sentence of damages. The only relevant consideration here is the likelihood of embarrassment. 16. 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 interest 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 too 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 proceedings 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. But in this case we are of the view that the civil suits should be stayed till the criminal proceedings have finished."
(3.) From the above stated observations, it is evident that in the civil court, cases drag for years together and memory of the witnesses fades away. Another akin argument has been raised that the findings of the civil court are binding upon the criminal court. This argument is also fallacious. Section 40 to 44 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1972 state as to which judgments are relevant for a court of law. Section 41 specifically states that a final judgment, order or decree of a competent Court, in the exercise of probate, matrimonial, admiralty or insolvency jurisdiction, which confers upon or takes away from any person any legal character, or which declares any person to be entitled to any such character, or to be entitled to a specific thing, not as against any specified person but absolutely, is relevant when the existence of any such legal character, or the title of any such person to any such thing, is relevant. This controversy is not new. A Full Bench of the Lahore High Court in B.N. Kashyap v. Emperor, 1945 AIR(Lah) 23 held that a criminal court is neither subordinate nor subservient to the civil court. Criminal court can always examine and appreciate evidence which is led before that court.;