Shree Chand Upadhyay vs Smt. Kalyani Devi And Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 1699 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

?Court No. - 8
 

 
Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 452 of 2001
 
Appellant :- Shree Chand Upadhyay
 
Respondent :- Smt. Kalyani Devi And Others
 
Counsel for Appellant :- B.R.Tripathi,A.R. Khan
 
Counsel for Respondent :- S.R. Shukla,Ashutosh Bajpai,H.K. Srivastava,Hom Narayan Awasthi
 

 
Hon'ble Vivek Chaudhary,J.

(Review Application No.127674 of 2017)

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

This is an application for review of the order dated 9.11.2017 passed by this Court.

Learned counsel for the review-applicant submits that the documents filed along with C.M. Application no 1893 of 2005 dated 22.5.2005 under Order XLI Rule 27 of C.P.C. was not considered by the Court while passing the aforesaid order. The application under Order XLI Rule 27 of C.P.C., was allowed by this Court on 15.1.2014 and evidence was taken on record and along with the same, statement of some of the witnesses in MACT case was filed. This Court while hearing the appeal has considered the said evidence therefore, it cannot be said that the same was not considered. The judgment and order passed in Criminal Case no.3651/2000 "State vs. Krishna Nand alias Raja Babu" under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304A IPC was filed as Paper no.4. In the said case, it was claimed that Krishna Nand was the driver of the vehicle. The criminal court rejected the said case against the accused by its judgment dated 19.4.2004 giving him benefit of doubt.

The law is well settled that the judgment of a criminal court cannot be read in civil proceedings. Suffice would be to refer to the case of Kishan Singh v. Gurpal Singh, (2010) 8 SCC 775. The Supreme Court in Paragraph 18 of the said judgment held:

"18. Thus, in view of the above, the law on the issue stands crystallised to the effect that the findings of fact recorded by the civil court do not have any bearing so far as the criminal case is concerned and vice versa. Standard of proof is different in civil and criminal cases. In civil cases it is preponderance of probabilities while in criminal cases it is proof beyond reasonable doubt. There is neither any statutory nor any legal principle that findings recorded by the court either in civil or criminal proceedings shall be binding between the same parties while dealing with the same subject-matter and both the cases have to be decided on the basis of the evidence adduced therein. However, there may be cases where the provisions of Sections 41 to 43 of the Evidence Act, 1872, dealing with the relevance of previous judgments in subsequent cases may be taken into consideration."

In view of the settled legal position, there is no force in the review application. It is accordingly rejected.

[Vivek Chaudhary,J.]

Order Date :- 28.4.2022

Sachin