Dhurum Jeet Khera vs State
1993 Latest Caselaw 649 Del

JUDGMENT

S.C. Jain, J.

(1) The petitioiier, Mr. Dharam Jeet Khera has filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. read with Article 227 of the Constitution praying for the stay of the proceedings in Criminal Case tided as State Vs. Dharam jeet Khera arising out of F.I.R. No. 286 of 1988 of Police Station Malviya Nagar, New Delhi under Section 447 Indian Penal Code

(2) Earlier the petitioner had filed a petition being Cr.M(M) 1028 of 1989 in this Court for quashing the F.I.R., but the same was dismissed by this Court.

(3) Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the complainant, Smt. Mahendra Kumari had also filed a Civil Suit being No. 2303 of 1988 titled as Mahendra Kumari presence of that civil suit, the criminal proceedings under Section 447 Indian Penal Code ., initiated on the basis of the complaint made on behalf of Smt. Mahendra Kumari cannot continue. According tot he learned counsel for the petitioner, these criminal proceedings be ordered to be stayed till the disposal of the civil suit otherwise contrary decisions might come prejudicing the interest of te parties. He relied upon two decisions of this Court reported as Om Prakash Madan vs. State [1989 (1) Delhi Lawyer 203] and Smt. Raminder Kaur Bedi vs. Shri Jatinder Singh Bedi [1988 (2) Delhi Lawyer 348] in support of his contention that a party should not be permitted to litigate before a criminal court when the civil suit is pending.

(4) In the present case, from the record it is apparent that the civil suit was filed on 19.9.1988 when Smt. Mahendra Kumari plaintiff alleged herself to in possession of this property. According to the allegations made in the plaint lodged on 21.9.1988 that Mr. Dharam Jeet Khera, the accused, criminally tress passed on the property sometimes during early hours of 20.9.1988 and disposed her illegally from the property. It means that on prima facie ground on the day when the suit was filed for injunction she was in possession, but later on i.e. on 20.9.1988 the petitioner in this petition had committed the offence of criminal tresspass. On the basis of the inquiry, Fir No. 286/88 was registered under Section 447 of Indian Penal Code . On prima facie ground a substance was found in this criminal case and that is why this Court dismissed the petition being Cr.M(M) No. 1028 of 1989 filed by this petitioner for quashing the F.I.R. and the proceedings arising out of it.

(5) The civil suit filed for injunction has to proceed on a different footing than this criminal complaint in which the offence of criminal tresspass is alleged, whereas the civil suit was filed on 19.9.1988 when Smt. Mahendra Kumari was in possession of the property. The evidence in both these cases would be different and no case depends upon the findings of the other. The decisions cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner are not applicable in the present circumstances of this case in as much as in the case Om Prakash Madan vs. State [supra] it was the proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. with respect to the same property in respect of which a civil suit was pending. The facts were different and they are not applicable in the present facts and circumstances of this case.

(6) Similarly, in Smt. Raminder Kaur Bedi v. Shri Jatinder Singh Bedi [supra], the facts were different. It pertained to the matrimonial disputes between the parties. In the petition for divorce husband made certain allegations against the wife which led the wife to file a criminal complaint under Section 500 Indian Penal Code . and in those circumstances, the criminal proceedings were ordered to be stayed till the disposal of the divorce petition.

(7) Under these circumstances, I find no merit in this petition, the same is dismissed. The order of stay of criminal proceedings already passed stands vacated.

(8) Record of the Lower Court be sent back immediately for further proceedings in accordance with law.