Sujit Barman Roy, C.J:— This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 15-12-2005 passed by a learned single Judge of this Court dismissing W.P (C) No. 14443 of 2005.
2. The appellants filed the aforesaid writ petition before the learned single Judge praying for stay of all further proceedings in C.S (III) No. 173 of 2005 pending before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhubaneswar till disposal of I.C.C No. 2855 of 2005 pending before the learned Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bhubaneswar arising out of same cause of action.
3. Appellant No. 1 being the Servants of the People Society is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1960. Appellant No. 2 is the Secretary of appellant No. 1 and Executive Secretary of the Board of Management of Orissa Branch of the said society. Appellant No. 3 is the Printer and Publisher of an Oriya daily newspaper, namely, “The Samaja” published from various towns of Orissa. Appellant No. 4 is the Editor (Working) of the Samaja. All the appellants are members of the said society. For publication of certain news items in various issues of the newspaper. The Samaja, respondent lodged a criminal case being I.C.C No. 2855 of 2005 before the learned Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bhubaneswar under Sections 465, 469, 479, 500, 501 and 502, IPC read with Section 34, IPC for alleged defamation of the respondent. On the basis of same set of facts the respondent also instituted a Money Suit being C.S (III) No. 173 of 2005 before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhubaneswar claiming a decree of Rs. 1 crore and some other reliefs.
4. Undoubtedly the cause of action for both the cases is same. According to the respondent, as stated in the petition of complaint and the plaint in the said civil suit he was defamed by the publications of some offending news items in the said newspaper.
5. Case of the appellants, in brief, is that if both the cases are proceeded with simultaneously, the accused-appellants may be prejudiced in their defence in course of trial of the criminal case and, therefore, they have asked for stay of further proceedings in the said civil suit pending disposal of the criminal case. Seeking aforesaid relief the appellants approached before the learned single Judge in the aforesaid writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. However, by the impugned judgment the learned single Judge refused to stay further proceedings in the civil suit pending disposal of the criminal case and accordingly, dismissed the petition.
6. To buttress the aforesaid contention, learned counsel for the appellants referred to a decision of the Supreme Court in M.S Sheriff v. State of Madras, AIR 1954 SC 397. It is undoubtedly true that in that case it was held that as between the civil and criminal proceedings, the criminal matters should be given precedence No. hard and fast rule can be laid down, but the possibility of conflicting decision in the civil and criminal Courts is not 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 even relevant, except for certain limited purposes, such as sentence or damages. The only relevant consideration is the likelihood of embarrassment. Another factor which weighs with the Court 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 innocent should be absolved as early as is consistent with a fair and impartial trial. It has further been held in that case that another reason is that it is undesirable to let things slide till memories have grown too 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 prosecution ordered under Section 476. However, in the circumstances of that particular case it was held by the Supreme Court that simultaneous prosecution of the criminal proceeding and the civil suits will embarrass the accused and that the civil suits should be stayed till the criminal proceedings have finished.
7. It is true that in the circumstances of the aforesaid case, the Supreme Court was of the view that if both the civil suit and the criminal case are proceeded with simultaneously it may cause embarrassment to the accused and upon holding such a view the Apex Court stayed the proceedings in the civil suit pending disposal of the criminal case.
8. But later on in large number of decisions, the Supreme Court held that if the criminal case and other proceedings whether in the form of civil suit or departmental proceedings are based on same set of facts and the facts are too complicated as a result of which it is likely to cause prejudice to the accused in the criminal case if both the cases are proceeded with simultaneously, it would be appropriate for the Court to stay the civil proceedings till disposal of the criminal case. But, for such an order a case has to be made out that such cases or proceedings involve highly complicated question of fact and law and that in case both the matters are proceeded with simultaneously it may cause prejudice to the accused in the prosecution case. Otherwise there is no justification to stay any of the proceedings and there is nothing in law not to allow both the cases to be proceeded with simultaneously.
9. In Capt. M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd., (1999) 3 SCC 679 : (AIR 1999 SC 1416), the Apex Court has given the following guidelines in this regard.
(i) Departmental proceedings and proceedings in a criminal case can proceed simultaneously as there is no bar in their being conducted simultaneously, though separately.
(ii) If the departmental proceedings and the criminal case are based on identical and similar set of facts and the charge in the criminal case against the delinquent employee is of a grave nature which involves complicated questions of law and fact, it would be desirable to stay the departmental proceedings, till the conclusion of the criminal case.
(iii) Whether the nature of a charge in a criminal case is grave and whether complicated questions of fact and law are involved in that case, will depending upon the nature of offence, the nature of the case launched against the employee on the basis of evidence and material collected against him during investigation or as reflected in the charge-sheet.
(iv) The factors mentioned at (ii) and (iii) above cannot be considered in isolation to stay the departmental proceedings but due regard has to be given to the fact that the departmental proceedings cannot be unduly delayed.
(v) If the criminal case does not proceed or its disposal is being unduly delayed, the departmental proceedings, even if they were stayed on account of the pendency of the criminal case, can be resumed and proceeded with so as to conclude them at an early date, so that if the employee is found not guilty his honour may be vindicated and in case he is found guilty, the administration may get rid of him at the earliest.
10. From the aforesaid, it is seen that both departmental proceeding and the criminal case can be proceeded with simultaneously provided the facts of both cases though identical, are not based on complicated questions of fact and law and there is no possibility of causing prejudice if both the cases are proceeded with simultaneously. The aforesaid guidelines were referred to in a recent decision of the Supreme Court in State Bank of India v. R.B Sharma, (2005) 99 CLT 1 : (AIR 2004 SC 4144). In Capt. M. Paul Anthony's (case), the Supreme Court dealt with similar question of law where a prayer was made to stay the departmental proceeding pending against the delinquent employee till disposal of the criminal case against him. In that case the Supreme Court held that there is consensus of judicial opinion on a basic principle that the proceedings in a criminal and a departmental proceeding can go on simultaneously, except where the departmental proceeding and the criminal case are based on same set of facts and evidence in both the proceedings is common. Basis for this proposition is that the proceeding in a criminal case and the departmental proceeding operate in distinct and different jurisdictional area. In departmental proceedings, the factors operating in the mind of the disciplinary authority, may be many, such as enforcement of discipline or to investigate the level of integrity of the delinquent or other staff. The standard of proof required in those proceedings is also different from that required in a criminal case. While in a departmental proceeding, the standard of proof is one of preponderance of probabilities, in a criminal case the charge has to be proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. In paragraphs 14 to 22 of the judgment in Capt. M. Paul Anthony's case (supra), the Supreme Court deduced from various earlier decisions and formulated the guidelines as reproduced by the said Court in State Bank of India's case (supra).
11. In the present case, we are dealing with a criminal case and a civil suit. Both the cases are based on same set of facts. It is no doubt that in both the cases the cause of action is the same. In the civil case the plaintiff, who is respondent before us, prayed for a decree of certain amount of money and other reliefs as damages for the loss he had suffered due to his alleged defamation. In the criminal case also same set of facts were relied upon for punishing the alleged offenders for commission of offence of defamation. But, the facts are simple. In one of these cases any complicated question of fact or law is involved, and accordingly there is no chance of any prejudice being caused to the appellants if both the cases are proceeded with simultaneously. In the context of this position and numerous decisions of the Supreme Court, we are unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that if both the cases are proceeded with simultaneously prejudice would be caused to them. We do not like to refer to various decisions of the Supreme Court laying down the aforesaid proposition as has been held by us. All such case laws are available from the two decisions of the Supreme Court which we have already referred to above.
12. In the result, we are constrained to hold that the learned single Judge has rightly dismissed the petition. His decision not to stay the proceedings of the civil suit till disposal of the criminal case against the appellants cannot be interfered with by us.
13. Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.
M.M Das, J.:— 14. I agree.
Appeal dismissed.