ORDER
B.P. Jeevan Reddy, C.J.
1. This revision petition has been referred to a Divi-
sion Bench by one of us (R.R.K. Trivedi, J.). The question for consideration is whether further proceedings in the motor accident claim petition be stayed pending disposal of the criminal case.
2. The petitioner is the driver of a truck bearing registration No. UTW 4700. Crime Case No. 230 of 1988 P.S. Raipura, District Banda, was registered against him under Section 307, I.P.C. with the allegaion that he attempted to kill Pfadeep Singh Sengar, Station House Officer of the said Police Station. After the death of the injured, the offence was converted into one under Section 302, I.P.C. The allegalion, in short, is that the petitioner, while driving the said truck, intentionally hit the motor-cycle, in which Pradeep Singh Sengar was travelling, and caused him serious injuries, which ultimately led to his death. We are told that the case has been committed and is now numbered as session trial No. 94 of 1988 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge, Karvi. The trial in the Sessions Court has not yet commenced.
3. The heirs and legal representatives of the deceased Police Officer instituted a motor accident claim petition, being claim Petition No. 126/70 of 1988 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Banda, claiming compensation/damages in a sum of Rs. 80,86,000/- for the death of the said Police Officer. The said amount is claimed under several heads. Respondents in the claim petition are the petitioner here in (Rajaram Garg, impleaded as second respondent), Ram Lal Garg (First respondent/owner of the truck) and the United India Insurance Company, Banda (the insurer/third respondent). According to the claimants, second respondent in the claim petition (petitioner in this Civil Revision) intentionally dashed against the motor-cycle, on which the deceased was travelling, with intent to kill him and caused him serious injuries leading to his death. In the claim petition, the revision-petitioner has filed a written statement, wherein he has denied the several allegations made in the claim petition and pleaded further that since he is being prosecuted in a criminal court in respect of the very same
transaction, the claim petition, which too involves adjudication of the very same issues, should be stayed. Issues have been framed in the claim petition. Issue No. 5 is to the following effect:–
Whether proceedings in the claim are liable to be stayed for the reason mentioned in paragraph 28 of the written statement, i.e., on account of the pendency of the criminal case?
This issue was heard as a preliminary issue and by its order dt. 7-1-1991, the claims Tribunal held that proceedings in the claim petition need not be stayed. The present revision petition is preferred against the said order.
4. Elaborate arguments were addressed to the learned single Judge, who heard the Civil Revision and a number of decided cases cited. Having regard to conflicting views expressed by learned single Judges of this Court, the learned single Judge (one of us i.e., R.R.K. Trivedi, J.) referred the matter to a larger Bench for an authoritative pronouncement on the appropriate legal position in such a controversy. It is evident that the question involved herein is of general application. Wherever a person is injured by a motor-vehicle, and particularly where it leads to loss of life, a criminal case is almost invariably, instituted whether under Section 304A, I.P.C. or other appropriate Section, as the case may be. In most such cases, a claim petition is also filed under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, claiming compensation/ damages, against the owner of the vehicle, its driver and the insurer. Same thing has happened here, with this difference that in this case, the allegation, both in the criminal case and the claim petition, is that it is not a case of accident, but a deliberate murder. In the criminal case, the petitioner is sought to be convicted under Section 302, I.P.C. where as in the claim petition, substantial amount of compensation/damages is sought on the very same ground. The question is whether in such cases, proceedings in the claim petition ought to be satyed pending disposal of the criminal case.
5. In law, there is no bar for both the proceedings going on simultaneously. While
the criminal prosecution has been launched and is being conducted by the State, the claim petition is instituted by the legal heirs and representatives of the deceased. The judgment in the criminal court would not, be relevant in the claim petition under the Motor Vehicles Act, and certainly not for establishing the fact in issue, by virtue of Sections 40 and 43 of the Evdence Act. Similarly, the judgment in the claim petition would be equally not relevant in the criminal case/sessions case, and certainly not for establishing the guilt of the accused therein.
6. Courts have, however, evolved certain principles in this behalf, mainly with a view to avoid ’embarrassment’ or prejudice, as it may be called. It would be appropriate to refer to some of those decisions. In M.S. Sheriff v. State of Madras, AIR 1954 SC 397, the Supreme Court considered this aspect. In a proceeding under Section 491, Criminal P.C. 1898, the High Court of Madras directed the Deputy Registrar of the High Court to launch a complaint against two Sub-Inspectors under Section 476, Criminal P.C. for perjury punishable under Section 193, I.P.C. Meanwhile, civil suits of damages were filed by the persons who were wrongfully confined by the two Sub-Inspectors. Two other criminal prosecutions under Section 344, I.P.C. (for wrongful confinement) were also launched against the Sub-Inspectors. However, by the time the matter reached the Supreme Court, the two criminal prosecutions were closed. The question before the Supreme Court was whether simultaneous prosecution of the criminal proceedings (in pursuance of the complaint lodged by the High Court) and the civil suits will ’embarrass’ the accused and which of the proceedings are to be stayed. It would be appropriate to quote the relevant observations in the judgment (at p. 399):
“….. We can see that the simultaneous prosecution of the present criminal proceedings out of which the present appeal arises and the civil suits will embarrass the accused. We have, therefore, to determine which should be stayed. As between the civil and the criminal proceedings we are of the opinion that the criminal matters should be
given precedence. There is some difference of opinion in the High Courts of India on this point. No hard and fast rule can be laid down but we do not consider that the possibility of conflicting decisions in the civil and criminal Courts is a relevant consideration. The law envisages such an eventuality when it expressly refrains from making the decision of one Court binding on the other, or event relevant, except for certain limited purposes, such as sentence or damages. The only relevant consideration here is the likelihood of embarrassment.
Another factor which weighs with us is that a civil suit often drags on for years and it is undesirable that a criminal prosecution should wait till everybody concerned has forgotten all about the crime. The public interests demand that criminal justice should be swift and sure, that the guilty should be punished while the events are still fresh in the public mind and that the inncent should be absolved as early as is consistent with a fair and impartial trial. Another reason is that it is undesirable to let things slide till memories have grown dim to trust.
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. For example, the civil case or the other criminal proceeding may be so near its end as to make it inexpedient to stay it in order to give precedence to a prosecution ordered under S. 476.
7. The above principle was affirmed and reiterated in the case of a criminal trial vis-avis a disciplinary proceeding in Kusheshwar Pubey v. Bharat Cocking Coal Ltd., AIR 1988 SC 2118. The appellant therein was an employee in a colliery. Disciplinary proceeding and criminal prosecution were launched against him on the allegation that he physically assaultled his superior. Both were being conducted simultaneously, whereupon the appellant filed a civil action in the Court of Munsif asking for an injunction restraining the the disciplinary proceeding pending the criminal trial. The Munsif passed an order staying further proceedings in the disciplinary action till disposal of the criminal case,
which was confirmed in appeal, but on
revision, the High Court set aside the said
order. The matter was then carried to the
Supreme Court. The Supreme Court referred
to certain earlier decisions of its own and of
the High Courts in support of the proposition
that the disciplinary proceedings ought to be
stayed pending the criminal case. It also took
note of certain decisions, including one of its
own, holding that there is nothing wrong in
parallel proceedings being taken — one by
way of disciplinary proceedings and the other
in criminal courl. It then proceeded to make
the following observation, which is instruc
tive for us as well (Para 4):
“Mr. Jain (Counsel for the petitioner) contended that we should settle the law in a strait-jacket formula as judicial opinion appeared to be conflicting. We do not pro-pose to hazard such a step as that would create greater hardship and individual situa-tions may not be available to be met and thereby injustice is likely to ensue.”
After referring to some more decisions of its own, the Supreme Court expressed the following opinion:-
“6. The view expressed in the three cases of this court seems to support the position that 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 the facts and circmustances of a particular case, there should or should not be such simultaneity of the proceeings 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, strait-jacket 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.
7. In the instant case, the criminal action and the disciplinary proceedings are grounded upon the same set of facts. We are of the view that the disciplinary proceedings should have been stayed and the High Court was not right in interfering with the trial court’s order of injunction which had been affirmed in appeal.”
8. In our opinion too, it would neither be possible nor advisable to layd down any formula or, for that matter, any hard and fast rule governing such a situation. It must be left to be decided by each court in the given facts and circumstances of a particular case. The guiding consideration should, however, be the likely embarrassment or the likely prejudice, as it may be called, by the simultaneous prosecution of both the criminal case and the civil suit/disciplinary proceedings/motor vehiice accident claims.
9. The learned Counsel for the revision petitioner, Sri Yatindra Singh, contended, on the basis of the decision of a learned single Judge of this Court in Satendra Kumar Gupta v. A.B. Shorewal, 1978 All Cri C 359 : (1978 All LJ 996), that simultaneous prosecution of the criminal and civil proceedings per se constitutes embarrassment and, therefore, one must necessarily be stayed. That was a case where the accused was being prosecuted in a criminal court for an offence of defamation under Section 500, I.P.C. and some other offences and simultaneously suits for damages were also filed for defemation. The accused applied for stay of criminal proceedings. The learned single Judge referred to certain decided cases and observe as follows (at p. 1001, Para 18 of All LJ):–
“It follows from the above decisions that where civil and criminal proceedings with respect to the same matter are simultaneously going on one of those proceedings can be stayed if the court comes to the conclusion that the simultaneous pendency of the two proceedings is causing embarrassment to the
parties concerned, but no hard and fasi rule can be laid down as to which of those proceedings should generally be stayed. As a matter of fact, expedious disposal of criminal proceedings is to be given precedence over the disposal of civil suits so that criminal cases are decided when the events are still in the public mind and the innocent should be absolved as early as possible, but there may be cases where consdiering the weight and binding effect of civil decision it may be expendient in the interest of justice to stay crimnal proceedings.”
The learned Judge then proceeded to examine the facts of the case in the light of the above principles and observed that since both the r civil and criminal courts have to adjudicate upon the alleged defamatory nature of the impugned publication on the basis of documentary evidence, and not on the basis of any oral evidence, the accused “are bound to face embarrassment on account of simulataneous pendency of the two proceedings.”
The learned Judge opined that “it is, therefore, expedient in the interest of justice to stay one of the two proceedings.” The learned Judge further opined that the offences involved in the criminal case were not serious and therefore, it was “more desirable and expedient in the interest of justice to stay the criminal case and not the civil suits.” It is difficult to say that this decision lays down a rule of law that simultaneous prosecution of civil and criminal cases by itself amoutns to embarrassment. No such hard and fast rule can be recognised. To repeat, it depends upon the facts of each case.
10. The learned counsel also relied upon another decision of a learned single Judge of this Court in Ramnath v. Rajendra Prasad Gordhan, 1966 All LJ 811. In this case, the learned single Judge held, mainly relying upon the proposition enunciated by the Supreme Court in M.S. sheriff (AIR 1954 SC 397) (supra), that the civil action should be stayed pending decision of the criminal court. We do not think it necessary to multiply the cases, in view of the fact that relevant principles are well-settled and have already been enunciated by the Supreme Court in the decisions
referred to above. It is only a question of application of those principles to the individual facts of a given case.
11. Applying the test to embarrassment or prejudice, as the case may be, let us now examine the facts of the present case to determine whether the proceedings in the motor accident claim petition should be stayed pending the sessions case. It must be remembered that the petitioner (second respondent in the claim petition) has filed his counter/written statement in the claim petition. It is, of course, a case of total denial. The claim petition was filed as far back as 1988. Already a period of three years has elapsed. Any further delay in the disposal of the claim petition is not advisable. The idea underlying motor accident claim petitions is to provide prompt and early relief to the dependents/ legal representatives of the deceased or the disabled victim. Having regard to the further fact that parties in both the proceedings are not identical and the possibility of conflicting decisions in civil and criminal courts is not a relevant consideration and keeping in mind the only consideration namely, the likelihood of embarrament, we are of the opinion that this is not a fit case for staying the proceedings in the claim petition.
12. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that if the trial of the claim petition is not stayed, the petitioner has to appear as a witness on his behalf and subject himself to cross-examination, which is likely to embarrass him. We see no basis for this argument in the facts and circumstances of the present case. The ultimate quest in the claim petition is to find out the truth and we are unable to see how the petitioner suffers embarrassment by appearing as a witness in the present case where his plea is one of mere denial and when he has already filed his counter/written statement in the claim petition. We, however, direct that the sessions trial No. 94 of 1988 on the file of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karvi be taken up on a priority basis and disposed of as expeditiously as possible.
13. We must make it clear that we have not expressed, and do not propose to express
any opinion on the merits of any of the issues involved either in the sessions case or in the claim petition. Each of them will be decided on its own merits. The limited issue we have dealt with is whether the claim petition should be stayed pending the sessions trial and we think, on the facts and circumstances of the case, that it need not be.
14. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed. We make no order as to costs.
15. A copy of this order shall be communicated to the Additional Sessions Judge, Karvi, within two weeks from today. A copy of this order shall also be furnished Jo the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, Banda, also within the same period.
16. Petition dismissed
