AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S.D. Bajaj, J.
Vishwajit Prabhakar son of Shri Raghunath Dass took the test in Matriculation examination held by the Punjab School Education Board in March 1985. Roll number of the candidate was 367041 and the centre of examination was in S.B.A.C. School Bajwara, tehsil and district Hoshiarpur. Ram Nath petitioner in criminal miscellaneous No. 4295M of 1989, who is posted as P.T.I. Teacher in Government Middle School, Bichhohi, tehsil and district Hoshiarpur, was one of the Supervisors posted at the Centre.
Supervisor Ram Nath found the student Vishwajit Prabhakar using unfair means, while taking the matriculation examination at the Centre aforesaid and made a report of it to the Centre Superintendent Suresh Kumar and also the Punjab School Education Board at Mohali. Initially, on July. 10, 1985, the result of the candidate was not declared and it was given out by the Board in the gazette to be a case of unfair means. Raghunath Dass, father of the candidate, met the authorities concerned in the Punjab School Education Board at Mohali, who on his representation declared his son successful in the matriculation examination on December 3, 1985.
Both the father and son filed civil suit No. 60 on April 3, 1986(Copy of plaint Annexure P2) against the Supervisor and the Board for recovery of Rs. 5000/ (Rupees five thousand only) as damages for deflamation and loss to their reputation through wrong declaration of the result by defendant No. 2 on the recommendation of defendant No I on July 10, 1985, which was dismissed by the learned Additional Senior Sub Judge, Hoshiarpur, on November 5, 1988.
On the same subjectmatter of civil litigation, father of the candidate filed against both the defendants aforesaid criminal complaint, Annexure P. I under sections 182, 427, 500, 504 and 507 of the Indian Penal Code, on December 3, 1985, which was dismissed by the learned trial court on March 25, 1987. In revision, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur, reversed the order of the learned trial Court and directed it to make, further enquiry and proceed according to law. Defendant No. 2 was discharged by the learned trial Court on October 14, 1987. Defendant No. 1 in the Civil suit Supervisor Ram Nath filed a revision against the summoning order which was dismissed on April 11, 1989. The petitioner has now approached this Court for quashing the complaint dated December 3, 1985, and further proceedings being taken on its basis by the learned trial Court against him on the ground that dismissal of Civil, suit No. 60 on December, 5, 1988, bars it completely.
I have, heard Shri S. S. Chopra, Advocate for the petitioner, Shri J.B.S. Gill, Advocate, for the respondent and have carefully gone through the record of proceedings both civil and criminal inter parties appended as Annexure to the quashing petition.
On facts it is not disputed that the civil and criminal litigation are both in respect of the same subjectmatter. It has been held by the Supreme Court in Messrs Karamchand Ganga Pershad and another v. Union of India and others, AIR 1971 SC 1244 and by our own High Court in Major Singh and others v. The State of Punjab, 1986 Chandigarh CriminalCases 33.In this behalf, Mr. P.C. Mehta, learned counsel for the petitioners has placed strong reliance on M/s Karam Chand Ganga Parshad and another v. Union of India and others, AIR 1971 SC 1244, wherein it was observed that "It is a well established principle of law that decisions of the civil Courts are binding on the Criminal courts, The converse is not true." In this case, a Division Bench of Delhi High Court after elaborately hearing the arguments in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, rejected the writ petition on the sole ground of that in view of the pendency of the criminal proceedings before some courts, it would be inappropriate for the High Court to pronounce on the questions arising for decision in the writ petition. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court held that the High Court had seriously erred in coming to this conclusion The appeals were, therefore, allowed by the Supreme Court and the cases were remitted to the High Court, for disposal on merits, with observations which have already been noticed. Mr. Mehta, also placed reliance upon Rajendra Kumar Ruia v. State of West Bengal, 1969 Criminal Law Journal 243, a Single Bench decision of the Calcutta High Court, wherein it was held that if the civil proceedings had terminated determining the civil rights in favour of the accused, the Criminal proceeding must be dropped since its continuation would be an abuse of the process of the Court.
In result, Criminal Miscellaneous No. 4295M of 1988 succeeds and is allowed. Complaint, Annexure P1, as also further proceedings on its basis taken by the learned trial Court, against the petitioner arc both quashed.