Arvind Kalidas Wadodkar Vs. Ramdas Devidas Joshi - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
code of civil procedure 1908, section 15, indian penal code 1860, section 500 - defamation - simultaneous prosecution of criminal proceedings and civil suit for damages - civil suit has to be stayed till disposal of criminal prosecution.;m.s. sheriff v. state of madras air 1954 sc 397 applied.;assumpcao riberio v. elaviano boa ventura salvador sil veira air 1979 goa, daman &diu 37 followed. - maharashtra scheduled castes, scheduled tribes, de-notified tribes (vimukta jatis), nomadic tribes, other backward classes and special backward category (regulation of issuance and verification of) caste certificate act (23 of 2001), sections 6 & 10: [s.b. mhase, a.p. deshpande & p.b. varale, jj] caste certificate petitioner seeking appointment against the post reserved for member of schedule tribe his caste certificate was invalidated subsequently held, his appointment would not be protected. the observations/directions issued by supreme court in para 36 of judgment in the case of state v millind reported in 2001 91) mah. lj sc 1 is not the law declared by supreme court under article 141 of the constitution of india. said observations/directions are issued in exercise of powers under article 142 of the constitution and also have no application to the cases relating to appointments and are restricted to the cases relating to admissions. the protection, if any, to be granted in the fact and circumstances of case would depend upon exercise of discretion by supreme court under article 142 of the constitution. said powers under article 142 of constitution is not available to the high court. hence no protection can be granted by high court even in cases relating to admissions. orderl. manoharan, j.1. the applicant in this revision is the defendant in civil suit no. 26 of 1990 which was instituted by the non-applicant for recovery of damages for defamation. in the meanwhile, the non-applicant/plaintiff also instituted a criminal prosecution under section 500 of indian penal code for defamation therefore, in the civil suit the defendant - applicant herein- filed an application under section 111 of code of civil procedure for stay of the suit till the disposal of the criminal case instituted by the plaintiff-non applicant. by the impugned order the learned 4th joint civil judge, sr dn., akola, dismissed the application. aggrieved by the same, the defendant has preferred this revision. 2. the learned counsel, shri shelat, on behalf of the applicant has submitted that the very conclusion reached by the learned judge is opposed to the accepted precedent and, therefore, is liable to be reversed. the learned counsel submitted that these two matters since rest on the same set of facts and in the civil proceedings since the applicant is to file a written statement revealing his defence and give evidence, the same would cause prejudice to the applicant who is the accused in the said criminal prosecution. the learned counsel stressed the point that in a criminal proceeding the accused is not bound to disclose his defence whereas in the civil proceeding since he is required tofile his written statement, the aforesaid protection in the criminal proceeding in effect will be taken away if the civil suit is to proceed against him. the learned counsel made reliance on the decision in the case of m.s. sheriff v. state of madras, : [1954]1scr1144 in support of the aforesaid submission. the supreme court in the said decision has held that simultaneous prosecution of criminal proceedings and civil suit with embarass the accused, and since it is necessary with due regard to the nature of criminal proceedings that a speedy trial in the criminal proceeding is necessary, the civil suit has to be stayed till the disposal of criminal proceedings. in the decision in assumpcao ribeiro v. elaviano boa ventura salvador silveira, a.i.r. 1979 goa 37 the judicial commissioner also took the same view relying on the decision of supreme court reported in : [1954]1scr1144 . applying the principles laid down by the supreme court in the aforesaid decision, it is clear that the civil suit from which this revision arises has to be stayed till the criminal prosecution under section 500 of indian penal code launched by the non-applicant is disposed of. 3. in view of the above, the revision is allowed. the impugned order of the learned joint civil judge, .sr. dn., akola is set aside and the civil suit from which this revision arises, is stayed till the disposal of the aforesaid criminal prosecution. no costs4. application allowed.

Judgment:
ORDER

L. Manoharan, J.

1. The applicant in this revision is the defendant in Civil Suit No. 26 of 1990 which was instituted by the non-applicant for recovery of damages for defamation. In the meanwhile, the non-applicant/plaintiff also instituted a criminal prosecution under section 500 of Indian Penal Code for defamation Therefore, in the civil suit the defendant - applicant herein- filed an application under section 111 of Code of Civil Procedure for stay of the suit till the disposal of the criminal case instituted by the plaintiff-non applicant. By the impugned order the learned 4th Joint Civil Judge, Sr Dn., Akola, dismissed the application. Aggrieved by the same, the defendant has preferred this revision.

2. The learned Counsel, Shri Shelat, on behalf of the applicant has submitted that the very conclusion reached by the learned Judge is opposed to the accepted precedent and, therefore, is liable to be reversed. The learned Counsel submitted that these two matters since rest on the same set of facts and in the civil proceedings since the applicant is to file a written statement revealing his defence and give evidence, the same would cause prejudice to the applicant who is the accused in the said criminal prosecution. The learned Counsel stressed the point that in a criminal proceeding the accused is not bound to disclose his defence whereas in the civil proceeding since he is required tofile his written statement, the aforesaid protection in the criminal proceeding in effect will be taken away if the civil suit is to proceed against him. The learned Counsel made reliance on the decision in the case of M.S. Sheriff v. State of Madras, : [1954]1SCR1144 in support of the aforesaid submission. The Supreme Court in the said decision has held that simultaneous prosecution of criminal proceedings and civil suit with embarass the accused, and since it is necessary with due regard to the nature of criminal proceedings that a speedy trial in the criminal proceeding is necessary, the civil suit has to be stayed till the disposal of criminal proceedings. In the decision in Assumpcao Ribeiro v. Elaviano boa Ventura Salvador Silveira, A.I.R. 1979 Goa 37 the Judicial Commissioner also took the same view relying on the decision of Supreme Court reported in : [1954]1SCR1144 . Applying the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid decision, it is clear that the civil suit from which this revision arises has to be stayed till the criminal prosecution under section 500 of Indian Penal Code launched by the non-applicant is disposed of.

3. In view of the above, the revision is allowed. The impugned order of the learned Joint Civil Judge, .Sr. Dn., Akola is set aside and the civil suit from which this revision arises, is stayed till the disposal of the aforesaid criminal prosecution. No costs

4. Application allowed.