Madhya Pradesh High Court
Yogendra Singh Chouhan, vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 4 October, 2024
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC--JBP:49789
1 W.A. No.2247 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT,
CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN
ON THE 4th OF OCTOBER, 2024
WRIT APPEAL No. 2247 of 2024
YOGENDRA SINGH CHOUHAN,
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Sourabh K. Sharma - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Amit Seth - Additional Advocate General for the respondent/State.
ORDER
Per: Hon'ble Shri Justice Suresh Kumar Kait, Chief Justice
1. The present appeal assails the order dated 25.09.2024 passed by the
learned Single Bench (Jabalpur) in W.P. No.29138/2024,
No.29138/2024 whereby the
petition preferred by the appellant against the order dated 21.05.2024 and
21.09.2022 passed by the Division Commissioner, Bhopal for framing of
additional issued was rejected.
2. The appellant has averred that respondent No. 1 issued a show cause
notice under section 19 (2) of the Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 on tthe
basis of the recommendation letter issued by the Commissioner, Bhopal
Division, Bhopal seeking his removal from the post of elected coun
councilor of
Ward No. 46, Municipal Corporation, Bhopal.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC--JBP:49789
3. The appellant is aggrieved that his application under Order 14 Rule
5 read with Section 151 CPC seeking amendment of the issues was
dismissed without application of mind by the learned Single Judge.
4. The brief background of the case is that on 20.09.2022, the
encroachment wing of respondent No.2 came to demolish 37 sl
slums
situated at Ward No. 33, Bhopal and the site was visited by local MLA
alongwith other politicians and activists. The appellant allegedly snatched
the key of the vehicle belonging to respondent No.2 and drove it away
from the aforesaid area.
5. According too petitioner, the team of Bhopal Municipal Corporation
had come without issuing proper notice to the slum dwellers and petitioner
was in fact pacifying the mob and the slum dwellers. According to him, no
physical assault had taken place and only peaceful ttalks
alks were made.
However, FIR was lodged on 21.09.2022, pursuant to which respondent
No. 2 wrote a letter to respondent No. 1 to initiate proceedings under
Section 19(A) of the Municipal Corporation Act, 1956. Thereafter, Show
Cause Notice dated 09.01.2023 was issued by respondent No. 2 against the
appellant.
6. The appellant preferred an application to respondent No. 2 seeking
stay of proceedings. However, finding no remedy, he preferred W.P.
4057/2023 seeking quashing of show cause notice. However,
However the said
petition was withdrawn with liberty to file reply to the show cause notice
before the competent authority.
7. Vide order dated 19.04.2023, respondent No. 2 dismissed
appellant's objection holding that Section 19(A) of the Act has nothing to
do with criminal proceedings. The appellant preferred W.P. No.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC--JBP:49789
10776/2023 challenging the aforesaid order dated 19.04.2023, which
according to him is pending adjudication.
8. Respondent No. 2 in the pending proceedings vide order dated
19.12.2023 framed following issues:-
^^¼1½
¼1½ D;k fnukad 20@09@2022 dks le; yxHkx 2 cts vukosnd]
fyad jksM+ ua- 1 fLFkr [ksy ,oa ;qok dY;k.k foHkkx dks gLrkarfjr
jkt/kkuh ifj;kstuk dh Hkwfe ij >qXxhokfl;ksa dks uxj fuxe Hkksiky
}kjk dksdrk gFkkbZ[ksM+k fLFkr vkoklks esa fLFkr f"kQ~V fd;s tkus
dh dk;Zk;Zokgh esa vukosnd }kjk "kkldh; dk;Z esa ck/kk mRiUu djrs
gq, vfrØe.k veys ds lkFk nqO;Zogkj fd;k x;k x;k\
¼2½ D;k vukosnd }kjk ?kVuk fnukad 20@09@2022 dks ekSds ij
ekStwn fidvi okgu Øekad ,eih&04&9013 ds pkyd ls okgu dh
pkch Nhudj Lo;a uxj fuxe dh xkM+h esa cSB x;s ,oa Lo;a xkM+h
pykdj xkM+h dks dk;ZLFky ls nwj ys tk;k x;k
x;k\
¼3½ D;k vukosnd }kjk ?kVuk fnukad dks ekSds ij ekStwn
vf/kdkjh@deZpkfj;ksa ds lkFk vHknz Hkk'kk dk mi;ksx fd;k x;k ,oa
>wek >Vdh dh xbZ] ftldh ,Q ,Q-vkbZ-vkj- Hkh Fkkuk Vh-Vh-
Vh uxj esa
fnukad
a 21@09@2022 dks dh xbZ\
¼4½ D;k vukosnd dk d`R; vokaNuh; gksdj vkpj.k lafgrk ds
foijhr gS] ,slh fLFkfr esa vukosnd dk ik'kZn ds :Ik esa cus jguk
okaNuh; ugha gS\^^
9. Thereafter, the appellant filed an application proposing additional
issues which has been dismissed vide order dated 20.02.2024.
10. The appellant made another application before respondent No. 2
seeking amendment in issues which was also rejected vide order dated
21.05.2024 holding that the same was already decided vide order dated
20.02.2024.
11. The petitioner preferred W.P.29138/2024 before Single Bench of
High Court at Jabalpur, who vide order dated 25.09.2024 dismissed the
same holding that the civil and criminal proceedings cannot go
simultaneously and same proceedings have to wait for the outcome of the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC--JBP:49789
criminal proceedings, is misconceived and thereby held that the opinion of
Commissioner, Bhopal Division, Bhopal rejecting appellant's application
for framing of additional issues was just and proper.
12. Being aggrieved, the appell
appellant
ant has preferred the present appeal on
the ground that respondent No.2
No.2-MCD
MCD passed a mechanical order without
even considering that the appellant was not even member of Ward No. 33
where the alleged incident took place. The appellant has averred that
respondent
ndent No. 2 ought to have framed the issues in accordance with the
facts of the case and thus, the impugned order is bad in law and deserves to
be set aside.
13. Submissions heard.
14. It is trite principle of law that criminal proceedings as well as civil
proceedings can go on simultaneously. The learned Single Bench of this
Court in the impugned judgment has relied upon Supreme Court's decision
in Seth Ramdayal Jat Vs. Laxmi Prasad reported in (2009) 11 SCC 545
wherein it is held as under :
"15. A civil proceeding as also a criminal proceeding may
go on simultaneously. No statute puts an embargo in relation
thereto. A decision in a criminal case is not binding on a civil
court. In M.S. Sheriff v. State of Madras [AIR 1954 SC 397],
a Constitution Bench of this Court was seized with a question
as to whether a civil suit or a criminal case should be stayed
in the event both are pending. It was opined that the criminal
matter should be give givenn precedence. In regard to the
possibility of conflict in decisions, it was held that the law
envisages such an eventuality when it expressly refrains from
making the decision of one court binding on the other, or
even relevant, except for certain limited purposes, such as
sentence or damages. It was held that the only
relevant consideration was the likelihood of embarrassment.
* * *
17. It is, however, significant to notice a decision of this
Court in Karam Chand GangaPrasad v. Union of India
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC--JBP:49789
{(1970) 3 SCC 694] wherein it was categorically held that
the decisions of the civil court will be binding on the criminal
courts but the converse is not true, was overruled, stating:
(K.G. Premshanker casecase[(2002)
[(2002) 8 SCC87 : 2003 SCC (Cri)
223] , SCCp. 98, para 33)
"33. Hence, the observation made by this
Court in V.M. Shah case [V.M.
V.M. Shah v. State
of Maharashtra, (1995) 5SCC767 : 1995
SCC (Cri) 1077] that the finding recorded
by the criminal court stands superseded by
the finding recorded by the civil court is not
correct enunciation of law. Further, the
general observations made in Karam Chand
case [(1970) 3 SCC 694] are in context of
the facts of the case stated above. The Court
was not required to consider the earlier
decision of the Constitution Bench in M.S.
Sheriff
heriff case [AIR 1954SC 397] as well as
Sections 40 to 43 of the Evidence Act."
18. Another Constitution Bench of this Court had the
occasion to consider the question in Iqbal Singh Marwah v.
Meenakshi Marwah [(2005) 4 SCC 370 : 2005 SCC (Cri)
1101] .
[See
ee also Syed AskariHadi Ali Augustine Imam v. State
(Delhi Admn.) [(2009) 5 SCC528 :(2009) 3 Scale 604]
Relying on M.S. Sheriff [AIR 1954 SC 397] as also various
other decisions, it was categorically held: ((iqbal
iqbal Singh case
[(2005) 4 SCC 370 : 2005 SCC (C (Cri)
ri) 1101] , SCC pp. 389-
90, para 32)
"32. Coming to the last contention that an effort should be
made to avoid conflict of findings between the civil and
criminal courts, it is necessary to point out that the standard
of proof required in the two proceedi
proceedings
ngs are entirely
different. Civil cases are decided on the basis of
preponderance of evidence while in a criminal case the
entire burden lies on the prosecution and proof beyond
reasonable doubt has to be given."
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC--JBP:49789
* * *
21. The admission of the appellant was recorded in writing.
While he was deposing in the suit, he was confronted with the
question as to whether he had admitted his guilt and pleaded
guilty of the charges framed. He did so. Having, thus,
accepted that he had made an admission in the criminal case,
the same was admissible in evidence. He could have resiled
therefrom or explained away his admission. He offered an
explanation that he was wrongly advised by the counsel to do
so. The said explanation was not accept
accepted
ed by the trial court.
It was considered to be an afterthought. His admission in the
civil proceeding was admissible in evidence."
15. Having relied upon aforesaid decision, the learned Single Judge was
of the considered opinion that the Commissioner Bhop
Bhopal,
al, Division Bhopal,
did not commit any mistake by rejecting the application for framing
additional issues. In our considered opinion, the learned Single Bench has
rightly held that the plea of the appellant that civil proceedings have to
wait for outcome of criminal proceedings is misconceived.
16. Finding no error or perversity in the order passed by the learned
Single Judge, we confirm the same. The present appeal is accordingly
dismissed.
(SURESH
SURESH KUMAR KAIT
KAIT) (VIVEK JAIN)
CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE
RC
