JUDGMENT R.K. Mahajan, J.
1. This revision petition has been filed against the order dated 16.2.1991, passed by Additional Civil Judge, Etah by virtue of which proceedings in O. S. No. 154 of 1989, Canara Bank v. M/s. Lakshmi Narain Rqjiv Kumar and others, are stayed in the trial court, during the pendency of the criminal proceedings under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 120, I.P.C.
2. It appears that plaintiff-revisionist filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 16,33.841.30 in the trial court against the respondents alleging that defendant-respondents had taken payment of the said amount against the forged "Hundies". The trial court stayed the proceedings in the civil suit on the ground that a criminal complaint has been filed under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 120, I.P.C. against the bank regarding the same amount.
3. I have heard the counsel for the parties.
4. Mr. R. S. Maurya, learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that the order of the trial court has been passed in the illegal exercise of jurisdiction and has caused a failure of justice.
5. Mr. Swapnil Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents quoted the lower court's order and cited two judgments in the case of Ram Nath and others v. Rajendra Prasad Gordhan Prasad, 1966 ALJ 811 and Assumpcao Ribeiro and others v. Elaviano Boaventura Salvador Silveria and others, AIR 1979 Goa, Daman and Diu 37. The ratio of the rulings in both the cases is that where the same act is both, a civil wrong and a crime and a person aggrieved by it files a suit for recovery of damages and also a criminal complaint against the wrong-doer, it is desirable that the hearing of the civil suit should be stayed in order to avoid embarrassment.
6. In my view, the standard of proof in criminal proceeding is different than civil. A person may be convicted in a criminal case and still he can be liable on the same facts for civil liability. The standard of proof in civil case is based on preponderance of probability and in criminal case, the offence has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. One can be held liable both for civil as well as criminal offence.
7. Mr. Chaudhary, senior counsel has placed before me Nathu and another v. 1st Additional District Judge, Etah and others, 1990 All LJ 748. It has been observed as under :
"Civil courts should not stay proceedings of a suit even if the parties to the said suit are also involved In a criminal trial on the same facts. The order of the civil court staying the proceedings of the civil suit till the disposal of the criminal case infringes upon the legal right of the plaintiff to seek his remedy in the civil court and is, therefore, erroneous in law. The argument that the defendant, who is also an accused in a criminal case filed by the plaintiff on the same facts would be called upon to enter on his defence in the suit and would be subjected to cross-examination and that it would amount to 'compelled testimony' and would be violative of Article 20(3) of the Constitution is a far-fetched argument. Merely because the defendant accused fancy that by such answer, he would incriminate himself, he cannot claim the privilege of silence."
He also relied upon Raja Ram Garg v. Chhanga Singh and others, 1991 AWC (III-(Vol. XXII) 1048. In this case. It was remarked that likelihood of embarrassment is not a criteria for staying the proceedings in the claim petition.
8. Sri Swapnil Kumar emphasised the observations of Supreme Court in M. S. Sheriff v. State of Madras, AIR 1954 SC 397, on the aspect of embarrassment. The society is changing very fast. It is well-settled principle of law that no case is authority for another case as every case has its own facts and after analysing the facts of each case, the conclusion is reached after applying the law. Mr. Chaudhary has submitted that Supreme Court ruling is not fully applicable rather it helps the revisionist. The relevant paragraph No. 16 of the aforesaid judgment is quoted below:
"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 innocent 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 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 a prosecution ordered under Section 476. But in this case we are of the view that the civil suits should be stayed till the criminal proceedings have finished."
9. I am of the view that the aforesaid ruling is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case.
10. On the facts and circumstances of the case. I am of the considered view that the impugned order of the trial court is bad in law and, therefore, the same is set aside. The trial court is to proceed on day-to-day hearing and the suit should be decided within six months. Parties are to appear on 12.10.1998 before the trial court.
11. The revision is allowed.
12. The record of the case will send to the trial court along with this order forthwith.