SCC Online Web Edition, © 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.

Page 1 Friday, June 14, 2024

Printed For: Mr. J Venugopal Pranathi Reddy
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1906 SCC OnLine Mad 13 : (1907) 6 Cri LJ 131

In the High Court of Madras

(BEFORE BENSON AND WALLIS, JJ.)

Anna Ayyar and others

Versus
Emperor
Criminal Revision No. 248 of 1903
Decided on September 13, 1906 and September 17, 1906

Page: 132

JUDGMENT
1. It is not contested that sanction under section 195(c) is necessary in the case of
the second, third and fourth accused who are parties in the civil suit instituted before
the commencement of these proceedings. The complaint must, therefore, be
dismissed so far as concerns these accused. As regards the other accused we think
that section 195(c) does not render sanction necessary as they are not parties to the
proceeding in which the document has been produced. It remains, however, to be
considered whether the prosecution should be allowed to go on against them pending
the trial of the civil suit. In the circumstances of the present case we think it should
not. The suit is one under section 77 of the Registration Act III of 1877 praying for the
registration of a Will, and, in this suit, accused Nos. 2 to 4 are plaintiffs, the other
accused are likely to be plaintiff's witnesses and the defendant is the present
complainant. After the institution of this civil suit the defendant preferred the present
complaint against the plaintiffs and their witnesses charging them with forgery of the
Will. In our opinion the defendant in a civil suit ought not to be allowed to prejudice
the trial of such suit by launching and proceeding with a criminal prosecution on the
same facts against the plaintiffs and their wit nesses pending the trial of such suit,
and in the exercise of our powers of superintendence we direct that the proceedings
against the accused other than the accused Nos. 2 to 4 be stayed pending the trial of
the civil suit. The circumstances of the present case, we may observe, are entirely
differ ent from those in the case of Eadara Virana v. The Queen (1 ), In re Devji Valad
Bhavani (2 ) and Raj Kumari Debi v. Bamasundari Debi (3 ). In the Madras case the
prosecution was instituted after the trial, in the

Page: 133

Bombay case the prosecution had been directed by the Court under section 478 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure after an enquiry into a claim petition under section 278 of
the Code of Civil Procedure, and in the Calcutta case, the criminal proceedings were
instituted first and the civil suit appeared to have been filed by way of answer to it.

———
(1) I.L.R., 3 Mad., 400.
 SCC Online Web Edition, © 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 2 Friday, June 14, 2024
Printed For: Mr. J Venugopal Pranathi Reddy
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(2) I.L.R., 18 Bom., 581.

(3) I.L.R., 23 Cal., 610.

Disclaimer: While every effort is made to avoid any mistake or omission, this casenote/ headnote/ judgment/ act/ rule/ regulation/ circular/
notification is being circulated on the condition and understanding that the publisher would not be liable in any manner by reason of any mistake
or omission or for any action taken or omitted to be taken or advice rendered or accepted on the basis of this casenote/ headnote/ judgment/ act/
rule/ regulation/ circular/ notification. All disputes will be subject exclusively to jurisdiction of courts, tribunals and forums at Lucknow only. The
authenticity of this text must be verified from the original source.