ORDER
1. Plaintiff has filed this suit for recovery of Rs.96, 41765-31p. Defendant No. I is a Limited Company of which defendant No. 2 is said to be the Managing Director. Plaintiff’s case is that defendants 2 and 3 have been managing and controlling the business of defendant No. I actively and that defendant No. I was working as a wholesale dealer of Plaintiff Company for the territory of Delhi since 1984 and was purchasing various varieties of craft and printing paper both from Delhi sales office of the plaintiff company as well as from the Mills situated at Saharanpur.
2.Briefly, the case of the plaintiff is that defendant No. 2 from time to time placed orders on behalf of the first defendant on the plaintiff and the same were executed by the plaintiff company by supply of goods. The plaintiff company sold and supplied goods worth Rs. 72,27,079 /- vide 189 number of consignment against the terms of direct payment within 45/60 days. The goods of the said consignments were duly received by the first defendant under signatures of defendant No. 2 in perfect condition and the plaintiff company duly debited the account of defendant No. I kept by Plaintiff Company in the ordinary course of their business. Defendant No. 1, failed to make payment on due dates or thereafter, and a sum of Rs. 72,27,079/- is claimed on that account. Another sum of Rs. 2,99,480/- is claimed in respect of the goods sold and supplied against the terms of payment through hundi documents. It is claimed that the hundies were accepted and signed by the authorised representatives of defendant No. 1. However, defendant No. I failed to make the payment on the due dates or thereafter and the same were returned by bank unpaid to the plaintiff company. After giving the adjustment of discounts etc. plaintiff has claimed that a sum of Rs. 71,82,266/- as principal amount and sum of Rs. 24,59,499-31 p. as interest on outstanding bills, totaling Rs.96,41,761- 31 p. is due to plaintiff from defendants.
3 Defendants appeared in the suit on 5th July 1988 and were granted four weeks time to file written statement. On 5th July 1988 the case was adjourned for admission/ denial of documents to 9th September 1988, Defendants did not file the written statement and instead an application under Order 7, Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure (I. A. 6980/88) was filed by defendants on 9th September 1988 on the sole ground that the proper court-fee has not been paid by the plaintiff. On 11th January 1989 C. L. Chaudhary, J. granted further eight weeks time to defendants to file written statement and the case was ordered to be listed before the Deputy Registrar on 10th April 1989 for admission / denial of documents and for 1st May 1989 for consideration of 1. A. 6980 188 and framing of issues. On 10th April 1989 counsel for defendants stated that written statement could not be filed because number of documents were filed by the plaintiff which could not be scrutinised by the counsel. These applications were filed about 10 months after defendants had appeared in the suit. 1. A. 3250,189 was filed on 25th April 1989 and I. A. 3992/ 89 was filed on 11thMay 1989.
4 In 1. A. 3250/89 defendant’s have asserted that before filing of the present suit, the plaintiff had filed a criminal complaint against them under Sections 403/406/409/ 420/120B of Indian Penal Code in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saharanpur and that the said complaint is pending on same facts as that of the present suit. Defendants say that as the subject matter of the complaint and the suit being the same, in the suit if they are ordered to file the written statement, it is likely to cause prejudice to the defense of the defendants in the complaint case pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saharanpur and have thus prayed that the proceedings of the present suit be stayed till the tendency/ disposal of the said criminal case. By 1. A. 3882/89 defendants pray that in case of dismissal of 1. A. 3250/ 89 the time for filing the written statement may be extended. This order will dispose of both these applications.
5 It is not necessary, let alone proper, to always stay proceedings in civil action. Whether the proceedings in a civil action should be stayed or whether parallel proceedings, both criminal and civil, may continue depends upon facts and circumstances of each case. No hard and fast rules have been laid down or can be laid down on this aspect. There is no legal bar to the continuance of criminal and civil proceedings simultaneously.
6. Mr. S. C. Malik, learned counsel for the defendants-applicants in support of the contention that simultaneous proceedings of the suit and the criminal complaint complaint will embarrass the defend ants-applicants in support of the contention that simultaneous proceedings of the suit and the criminal complaint will embarrass the defendants and their defense in criminal case will be prejudiced, has placed strong reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in M. S. Sheriff v. State of Madras, . In Sheriff’s case the Supreme Court on consideration of facts of that case came to the conclusion that proceedings of the civil suit should be stayed till decision of the criminal proceedings. In the said case, two proceedings were (1) civil suit for damages for wrongful confinement, and (2) criminal prosecution under Section 344, IPC for wrongful confinement. One of the facts, which weighed with the Supreme Court while directing stay of proceedings of civil suit, was the delay, which is generally caused in disposal of civil suits and desirability of swift disposal of criminal cases. The Supreme Court, however, added a note of caution by holding that “This, however, is not a hard and fast rule. Special considerations obtaining in any particular case might make some other course more expedient and just”. No hard and fast rule was laid down by the Supreme Court. Whether in a given case, an order directing stay of proceedings of civil suit should be made or not, will depend upon facts and circumstances of each case, the relevant consideration being likelihood of embarrassment or not, to the accused.
7 Learned counsel for the defendants also placed reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in Kusheshwar Dubey v. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd., , a case in which the Supreme Court held that a criminal action and the disciplinary proceedings were grounded upon the same set of facts and the decision of the trial court granting injunction staying the disciplinary proceedings was upheld and the decision of the High Court was reversed. Even in this case, the Supreme Court did not lay down any general guide lines. The facts of Dubey’s case are that on the allegation that the employee physically assaulted his supervising officer; he was subjected to disciplinary proceedings as also criminal prosecution. The employee sought injunction in respect of disciplinary action pending criminal trial. On behalf of the employee it was argued that as judicial opinion appears to be conflicting on the question whether parallel proceedings one disciplinary and other criminal, could continue or not, the Supreme Court should settle the law in a strait jacket formula. While rejecting the argument that the law should be settled in a strait jacket, the Supreme Court held that (Para 6): –
“While there could be no legal bar for simultaneous proceedings being taken, yet there may be cases where it would be appropriate to defer disciplinary proceedings awaiting disposal of the criminal case. In the latter class of cases it would be open to the delinquent employee to seek such an order of stay or injunction from the court. Whether in facts and circumstances of a particular case there should or should not be such simultaneity of the proceedings would then receive judicial consideration and the court will decide in the given circumstances of a particular case as to whether the disciplinary proceedings should be interdicted, pending criminal trial. As we have already stated that it is neither possible nor advisable to evolve a hard and fast, straitjacket formula valid for all cases and of general application without regard to the particularities of the individual situation. For the disposal of the present case, we do not think it necessary to say anything more, particularly when we do not intend to lay down any general guideline.”
8 On the facts of the case before the Supreme Court it came to the conclusion that criminal action and disciplinary proceedings were grounded upon same set of facts and the High Court was not right in interfering with the trial court’s order of injunction which had been confirmed in appeal, in granting injunction in favor of the employee. The Supreme Court declined the prayer of the employee to evolve a hard and fast straitjacket formula for all cases and of general application without regard to the particularities of the individual situation.
9 The main point to be noticed is that unlike the present case, in Sheriff’s case as also in Dubey’s case, the civil action has been initiated because of the criminal act and not vice versa.
10 Turning to the present case, apart from the conduct of the defendants-applicants of first seeking various adjournments and then coming forward with the application’ seeking stay of these proceedings, from the facts as disclosed in the plaint and mentioned hereinbefore, it is evident that it is a simple case for recovery of money for the goods supplied. One of the basic point of difference on facts between the present case and the cases before the Supreme Court is, that in the present case, the civil action i.e. non-payment of price of goods, has resulted in the criminal action being ‘initiated whereas in the cases before the Supreme Court, the criminal action i.e. Wrongful confinement in Sheriffs case and physical assault in Dubey’s case, had led to the civil action being initiated.
11 In the plaint, only a passing reference has been made in paragraph 18 about the dishonest intentions, manipulations and fraud etc. of defendants. Learned counsel for the defendants has placed strong reliance upon the said allegations made in Para 18 in support of the contention that in the criminal complaint, the complainant will have to prove dishonest intentions, manipulations and fraud etc., on the same set of facts which, defendants will be required to reply in their written statement. Counsel submits that by filing the written statement the defense of the applicant in the criminal complaint will be greatly prejudiced and there is every likelihood of embarrassment being caused to defendants who are accused in the criminal case. There cannot be any dispute that in criminal complaint, the complainant will have to prove beyond any reasonable doubt all ingredients of the offence. However, the scope and the proof required in the present suit is altogether different. In the suit this court will not be concerned with the alleged dishonest intentions, manipulations or fraud etc. The main aspect to be proved in the suit would be whether the goods were supplied by plaintiff to defendants and, if so, its value and whether payment has been made by defendants or not and, if not, which of the defend, ants are liable. Thus on facts it cannot be said that complaint and suit are grounded on same set of facts. In any case, to remove doubt, if any, Mr. Suman Kapoor, learned Counsel for the plaintiff stated that the plaintiff will not rely upon and claim any relief against the defendants on the basis of averments of dishonest intention, manipulations and fraud etc. made in para 18 of the plaint. In view of the said statement of learned Counsel for the plaintiff, I fail to appreciate how the defendants could still maintain that by filing written statement their defense in criminal case will be prejudiced or embarrassed. There is also no substance in the contention of learned Counsel for the defendants that in light of the aforesaid statement of learned Counsel for the plaintiff, the plaintiff should amend the plaint and delete the allegations regarding dishonest intentions, and manipulations and fraud and only thereafter defendants should be called upon to file the written statement. It is not necessary to direct the plaintiff to amend the plaint, the statement of learned Counsel will, of course, be binding on the plaintiff. As noticed earlier, only a passing reference has been made by the plaintiff about the dishonest intentions etc. in para 18 of the plaint.
12 Learned Counsel for the defendants has also relied upon Art. 20(3) of Constitution of India and contended that directing the defendants to file written statement would amount to compelling them to be a witness against themselves. The said Article, in my view, has no applicability. There is no compulsory disclosure in this case. The defendants are not being asked to disclose their defense of criminal case and, therefore, the question of violation of right guaranteed by Art. 20(3) of the Constitution of India does not arise. In somewhat similar circumstances the application seeking stay of civil suit was dismissed by Mahesh Chandra, J. in the case of Punjab & Sind Bank v. Prithi Automobiles in I.A. 6340/ 86 in S. No. 861/ 86 decided on 20th February, 1987.
13 In view of the aforesaid discussion, I do not find any merit in I.A. 3250/ 89 seeking stay of these proceedings.
14 Regarding I.A. 3882/89, in the facts and circumstances of the case, last opportunity is granted to the defendants to file written statement within two weeks subject to payment of Rs. 3,000/- as costs. Both the applications are disposed of accordingly.
15 Order accordingly.