Abdul Raheem v. Mohammed Thaha

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: P. Bhavadasan
Judgment Date: 2014-10-24
Court Decision / Holding: Original Petition disposed of; Ext.P4 order dated 13.10.2014 in IA 1803/2014 in OS 162/2011 upheld; stay not granted; civil and criminal proceedings are independent and distinct; arrangements to avoid posting conflicts may be made if required.
Final Disposition: Disposed of

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

ABDUL RAHEEM

Respondents

MOHAMMED THAHA

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• SRI.J.R.PREM NAVAZ
• SRI.RAHUL VENUGOPAL
• SRI.P.T.SHEEJISH

Case Synopsis & Summary

This Original Petition challenges Ext.P4, an order passed on 13.10.2014 by the Sub Court, Tirur in IA 1803/2014 in OS 162/2011, staying or delaying civil proceedings in the matter arising from an incident on 30.1.2009. Abdul Raheem is accused in CC 438/2009 under Section 325 IPC; an injured party had filed O.S. 162/2011 seeking compensation before the Sub Court, Tirur. When both matters came up for trial, the petitioner moved for stay of the civil suit under Section 151 CPC, contending that a stay is warranted until the criminal case is concluded. Ext.P4 dismisses this prayer. The petitioner relied on decisions such as MS Sheriff v. State of Madras (1954 KHC 488), Ved Prakash v. Guru Granth Saheb Sthan, Meerghat Town (2009 KHC 6834) and Syed Askari Hadi Ali Augustine Imam v. State (Delhi Admn.) (2009 KHC 350), asserting that civil proceedings ought to be held in abeyance during criminal proceedings arising from the same incident. The Kerala High Court, however, held that civil and criminal proceedings are independent and distinct; civil decisions rely on preponderance of probabilities while criminal requires beyond reasonable doubt; there is no hard and fast rule mandating a stay. It was further observed that even if co-counsel are common to both actions, there is no bonafide reason to stay; the court suggested possible arrangements to avoid posting conflicts. Consequently, Ext.P4 was upheld and the Original Petition was disposed of accordingly, denying the stay sought.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 151 of CPCSection 325 of IPC

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Estoppel does not arise
Civil and criminal proceedings are independent and distinct
Preponderance of probabilities in civil cases; beyond reasonable doubt in criminal cases

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner submitted that Ext.P4, an order staying the civil proceeding, was wrongly passed and should be set aside. He relied on several precedents noting that in cases where civil and criminal actions arise from the same incident, civil proceedings should generally be kept in abeyance until the criminal matter concludes; contended that simultaneous trials may cause embarrassment and that discretionary power under Section 151 CPC should be exercised in favor of a stay where appropriate.

Contentions of Respondents

Not stated in document; the court’s reasoning indicates the respondents’ position is that there is no hard and fast rule requiring a stay and that civil and criminal proceedings are independent; the court ultimately upheld the stay denial and Ext.P4.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
MS Sheriff v. State of Madras	1954 KHC 488	Distinguished	Cited by petitioner but the court distinguished it, noting civil and criminal proceedings are independent and that there is no hard-and-fast rule mandating a stay; facts differ and discretion under 151 CPC applies on a case-by-case basis.
Ved Prakash v. Guru Granth Saheb Sthan, Meerghat Town	2009 KHC 6834	Distinguished	Cited by petitioner yet distinguished by the court for similar reasons; not controlling in the present context.
Syed Askari Hadi Ali Augustine Imam v. State (Delhi Admn.)	2009 KHC 350	Distinguished	Cited to support stay argument, but court treated it as a case-specific principle and not a general rule; did not apply to mandate a stay here.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN FRIDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2014/2ND KARTHIKA, 1936 OP(C).No. 2421 of 2014 (O) --------------------------AGAINST THE ORDER IN I.A.1803/2014 IN OS 162/2011 of SUB COURT, TIRUR. PETITIONER(S): -------------- ABDUL RAHEEM AGED 35 YEARS, S/O.HAMZA, RESIDING AT VENGADATHIYIL HOUSE, THARAYIL, THENNALA AMSOM DESOM, TIRURANGADI TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS.SRI.J.R.PREM NAVAZ SRI.RAHUL VENUGOPAL SRI.P.T.SHEEJISH RESPONDENT(S): -------------- MOHAMMED THAHA, S/O.HAMZA, AGED 25 YEARS, RESIDING AT THONDALI HOUSE, WEST BAZAR, THENNALA AMSOM DESOM, TIRURANGADI TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676 102. THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24-10-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: OP(C).No. 2421 of 2014 (O) --------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ----------------------- EXT.P1.TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS NO.162/2011 FILED BEFORE THE HNOURABLE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, PARAPPANAGADI. EXT.P2.TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT IN OS NO.162/2011 FILED BEFORE THE HNOURABLE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, PARAPPANAGADI. EXT.P3.TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT FILED BY THE TIRURANGADI POLICE IN CC NO.438/2009. EXT.P4.TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN IA NO.1803/2014 IN OS 162/2011. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS ------------------------ ## **P. BHAVADASAN, J.** - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - O.P.(C) No. 2421 of 2014 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 24[th] day of October, 2014. ## **JUDGMENT** In this Original Petition the reliefs sought for are as follows: “1. Allow this Original Petition (Civil), by setting aside Ext.P4 order dated 13.10.2014 in I.A. No. 1803/14 in O.S.162/11, passed by the Honourable Sub Court, Tirur by allowing the prayer made therein. 2. issue such other order this Honourable Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. In respect of an incident which occurred on 30.1.2009 both criminal and civil proceedings were initiated. Petitioner stands accused of having committed offence punishable under Section 325 of Indian Penal Code and the police after investigation laid final report which was taken cognizance by the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Parappanangadi as C.C. 438 of 2009. In the meanwhile, the 2 OP.(C). 2421/2014. injured filed O.S. 162 of 2011 before Sub Court, Tirur for compensation. When both the cases came up for trial, the petitioner moved the civil court for stay of the proceedings in O.S. 162 of 2011 on the ground that criminal proceedings are going on and till it is terminated, the civil suit may not be proceeded with. That application filed under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure was dismissed by Ext.P4 order. It is under challenge. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relied on the decisions reported in M.S. Sheriff v. State of Madras (1954 KHC 488), Ved Prakash v. Guru Granth Saheb Sthan, Meerghat Town (2009 KHC 6834) and Syed Askari Hadi Ali Augustine Imam v. State (Delhi Admn.) (2009 KHC 350) and contended that it has been held by the Apex Court that it is desirable that in case where civil case and criminal cases arises out of the same cause of action, the civil case may OP.(C). 2421/2014. 3 be kept pending till the criminal proceedings are over. It is highlighted that in all those cases it is observed that criminal proceedings should be given precedence. It is further pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that if simultaneous trial causes embarrassment, that is one of the grounds to be urged before the courts to stay the civil proceedings. 4. It is well settled that neither disciplinary proceedings nor civil suit need be stayed till the criminal proceedings are terminated. The two are independent and distinct proceedings and the matters to be considered in each of the cases is totally different. In a civil suit, the case is decided on preponderance of probabilities while in criminal case, the prosecution has to establish the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Except the fact that the civil and criminal proceedings arise out of the same cause of OP.(C). 2421/2014. 4 action, the finding in one case has no binding effect on the other. The principle of estoppel do not arise for consideration at all. Even assuming that the criminal case is dismissed, it does not follow that the suit has to be dismissed nor does it follow that if the accused is convicted, the civil suit has to be decreed. In all the decisions relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is stated that each case depends upon the facts of the said case and in case the court below feels that there is severe embarrassment caused to the person concerned, it may consider the staying of the civil proceedings. There is no hard and fast rule regarding the stay of the proceedings. As already stated, the civil proceedings and criminal proceedings have nothing in common and the two are independent and distinct proceedings. 5. The other point urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the same counsel appears for the OP.(C). 2421/2014. 5 petitioner in both the civil and criminal cases and that causes considerable difficulties to the counsel. Here, it may be remembered that summons must have been issued in the criminal case long ago. So also the preliminary list in civil suit must have been published in the Sub Court at least one month before. If the petitioner had any grievance regarding the inclusion of the suit in the list he could have taken objection. It was at a time when the trial had started, the petitioner came forward with a petition for stay of the proceedings. There is no bonafides in the claim made at all. The court below is therefore perfectly justified in passing Ext.P4 order. Learned counsel for the petitioner points out that some arrangement may be made so as to avoid conflict of posting of the cases in two courts. It will certainly be open to the petitioner and his counsel to apply to the civil court for indulgence pointing out the trial of the criminal case. If any 6 OP.(C). 2421/2014. such application is filed, the court below shall consider it in accordance with law. The Original Petition is disposed of as above. P. BHAVADASAN, JUDGE sb.