Hon'ble Ravindra Nath Mishra-II,J.
1. This petition seeks issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari quashing First Information Report bearing Case Crime No. 0264 of 2015, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 & 471 I.P.C., Police Station Safipur, District Unnao.
2. Allegation against the petitioner in the impugned F.I.R., in brief, is that the petitioner is serving as Survey Lekhpal, prepared record through manipulation, tampering and forging, which does not depict the actual fact.
3. In the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner, the issue of wrong entries in the revenue record was brought before this Court. This Court issued certain directions. In compliance of the directions, the private respondents filed application under Section 33 read with section 39 of the Revenue Act for correction of record. The adjudicating authority/Sub Divisional Magistrate, Safipur, District Unnao vide order dated 30.7.2015 found tampering in the record and consequently impugned criminal proceedings have been initiated.
4. It has been pleaded on behalf of the petitioner that the issue of correction in revenue record has not attained finality and is pending adjudication before the revisional court. In such circumstances, criminal proceedings could not have been initiated against the petitioner. Impugned F.I.R. is liable to be quashed because criminal proceedings and proceedings on the revenue side cannot co-exist.
5. We have considered the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner in context of facts and circumstances of the case. This Court issued directions in the following terms:
"................. Revenue record, on the ground of alleged tampering in favour of private respondent. Option is open to the petitioner under Section 33 read with Section 39 of Revenue Act for correction of record. In case application is moved, the appropriate authority has ample power to find out whether any tampering has been done. In case any tampering has been done in the Revenue record, then it shall be incumbent to the competent authority to lodge F.I.R. and proceed against the person who are responsible for tampering in the Revenue record and correct and record accordingly. In case such application is moved, the competent authority shall proceed accordingly expeditiously. Since we have not entered into the merit of the controversy, issuance of notice to private respondent is dispensed with.
Subject to above, the writ petition is finally disposed of. "
6. It is evident that the issue of wrong entries in the Revenue Record has been adjudicated by the authorities on the revenue side. Vide order dated 30.7.2015, a specific finding has been recorded that the record has been manipulated/tampered with/forged and new persons have been entered as lessee in the record.
7. Civil/revenue/criminal proceedings can continue in regard to common incident/transaction, if the facts and circumstances so warrant. This aspect has been considered by this Court, while relying on a judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in judgement dated 6.10.2015 rendered in Writ Petition No. 9279 (MB) of 2015: Smapurna Nand Tiwari Vs. State of U.P. and others. Paras 11 to 15 of the said judgement read as under:
"11. The issue whether simultaneous civil and criminal proceedings can continue in regard to a common incident/ transaction, has been considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in (2005) 4 SCC 370 : Iqbal Singh Marwah and another Vs. Meenakshi Marwah and another (5 JJ), Paragraph 32 of the said judgement reads as under :-
"32.Coming to the last contention that an effort should be made to avoid conflict of findings between the civil and criminal Courts, it is necessary to point out that the standard of proof required in the two proceedings are entirely different. Civil cases are decided on the basis of preponderance of evidence while in a criminal case the entire burden lies on the prosecution and proof beyond reasonable doubt has to be given. There is neither any statutory provision nor any legal principle that the findings recorded in one proceeding may be treated as final or binding in the other, as both the cases have to be decided on the basis of the evidence adduced therein. While examining a similar contention in an appeal against an order directing filing of a complaint under Section 476 of the old Code, the following observations made by a Constitution Bench in M.S. Sheriff vs. The State of Madras and others give a complete answer to the problem posed [AIR 1954 SC 397] (AIR p. 399, paras 15-16) :
"(15) 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 even relevant, except for certain limited purposes, such as sentence or damages. The only relevant consideration here is the likelihood of embarrassment.
(16) 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."
(Emphasis supplied by us)
12. From the above extracted portion of the judgement rendered in Iqbal Singh Marwah's case(supra), it becomes evident that the standard of proof required in civil proceedings and criminal proceedings is entirely different. Civil cases are decided on the basis of preponderance of evidence while in a criminal case, the entire burden of proving that offence has been committed lies on the prosecution, and proof beyond reasonable doubt is required to be shown to the court. Because both the cases have to be decided on the basis of the evidence adduced in each of the cases, findings recorded in one proceeding cannot be treated as final or binding on the other.
13. It has further been elucidated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India that criminal matter should be given precedence. Civil litigation often drags on for long time whereas it is undesirable that a criminal prosecution should wait. It has been suggested that in case criminal prosecution is stayed, evidence is likely to be lost or destroyed. Public interest demands that the 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 fair and impartial trial. It has further been said that this however, is not a hard and fast rule. Special circumstances might require a different course of action. In given circumstances, it might be expedient to stay a particular proceeding.
14. Applying the above noted principle of law to the facts of this case, we find that at the time of consideration of facts and circumstances of the matter being adjudicated, the Lokpal found interpolation of record and commission of certain cognizable offence. Under the circumstances, it has been observed by the Lokpal that criminal proceedings be initiated.
15. In the considered opinion of this court, in case a matter is being taken up by a public authority/ public servant, and in the course of proceedings, facts and circumstances prima facie indicate commission of cognizable offence, ordinarily, it is desirable for such authority to issue appropriate directions to initiate criminal proceedings. "
8. We have taken note of fact that criminal proceedings have been initiated by Sub Divisional Magistrate, Safipur, District Unnao, who in fact found tampering in the record. A person, particularly a public servant/public authority is required to report commission of cognizable offence in case an incident/transaction indicates commission of such an offence.
9. The principle laid down in the above extracted portion of judgement rendered in Smapurna Nand Tiwari's case (supra) shall apply to the case of the petitioner also. Criminal proceedings, in peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, cannot be quashed in writ jurisdiction only because revision petition is pending in regard to the issue involved. The adjudicating authority viz. the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Safipur, District Unnao has already recorded a finding with reasons that revenue record has been interpolated. In these circumstances, initiation of criminal proceedings is surely warranted.
10. We are also of the considered opinion that this Court while issuing direction on the petition of the private respondents specifically provided that ".......In case any tampering has been done in the Revenue record, then it shall be incumbent to the competent authority to lodge F.I.R......". Under the circumstances, the initiation of criminal proceedings is not illegal, as such an eventuality was envisaged by this Court while dealing with the claim of the relevant parties.
11. Consequently, we find no ground to interfere in extraordinary writ jurisdiction.
12. The petition is dismissed.
Order Date :- 31.8.2016 Arvind/-