Both Civil & Criminal Proceedings Arising Out Of Same Matter Are Maintainable: Andhra Pradesh High Court

The Andhra Pradesh High Court held that both the civil and criminal proceedings arising out of the same matter are maintainable under the law.

The Court held thus in Appeal Suits instituted by the Plaintiff and the Defendants respectively, under Section 96, read with Order XLI Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC), challenging the Judgment and Decree of the Additional District Judge (ADJ).

A Division Bench of Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Maheswara Rao Kuncheam observed, “In the light of above unequivocal language employed in Section 357 Cr.P.C., including the interpretation made by the Apex Court dictum in D.Purushotam Reddy & Anr (stated supra), we deem it appropriate to hold that, both the civil and criminal proceedings arising out of same matter is aptly maintainable. The real purport of Section 357(5) CrPC is that in the event of awarding damages by the civil Court, it must take into account of compensation granted by the criminal Court by virtue of above provision.”

The Bench emphasised that if the civil proceedings are disposed of prior to the conclusion of the criminal proceedings relating to the same matter, then it is the duty of the Criminal Court to take into account the Decree passed by the Civil Court while exercising its powers vested under Section 357 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC).

“Indeed, the real rationale behind this statutory framework is to avoid double benefit by both civil and criminal courts, which would only act as an adverse to the interest of the affected parties”, it added.

Advocate Sasanka Bhuvanagiri appeared for the Appellant (Plaintiff) while Advocate Ghanta Sridhar appeared for the Respondents (Defendants).

Facts of the Case

The Appellant-Plaintiff was an agriculturist and also had a rice mill. He claimed that there were civil disputes between him and the Respondents-Defendants, who were own brothers. They filed a Civil Suit against the Plaintiff and his family members. According to the Plaintiff, the Defendants had unlawfully and without any authority dismantled the compound wall belonging to him. On questioning the said action, the Defendants allegedly attacked him and his brother. The Plaintiff was allegedly stabbed with a knife on the left temporal region (between the left eye and left ear) which caused bleeding injuries and led to his unconsciousness. Due to grievous injuries, he underwent surgical operations for sub-arachnoid and intraventricular haemorrhage.

In the process of medical treatment, the Plaintiff incurred Rs. 5,00,000/- towards expenses. He was permanently disabled to the extent of 85% which led to multifarious problems and rendered him unable to carry out his manual labour work. Hence, he claimed a total compensation of Rs. 20,00,000/- from the Defendants in view of injuries caused to him. He also lodged criminal proceedings under Sections 307, 326 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) against the Defendants. The ADJ decreed the Suit in part for a sum of Rs. 4,04,000/- with subsequent interest at 9% per annum from the date of suit till the date of deposit and also suit costs. Therefore, the Plaintiff was before the High Court against the disallowed claim and the Defendants were against the entire Decree.

Reasoning

The High Court in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, said, “The first point for consideration is whether the civil suit for damages is maintainable despite the plaintiff already having initiated the criminal proceedings relating to the same matter against the very same party.”

The Court enunciated that a plain reading of Section 357(3) CrPC permits compensation to any person suffering loss or injury due to the action of the accused and Section 357(5) provides that any subsequent civil suit must consider the compensation already awarded under this Section.

“Together, these provisions empower the Court to determine the compensation, which the victims are entitled to against the accused in civil proceedings. … It is apt to note the Judgment in D.Purushotama Reddy & Anr. Vs. K. Sateesh, wherein the Apex Court dealt with a core point, whether in a suit for recovery of money based on a cheque issued by the defendant but dishonoured, the amount received by the plaintiff (creditor) in criminal proceedings should be adjusted or not? In that scenario, the Apex Court categorically expressed that a suit for recovery of money due from a borrower is indisputably maintainable at the instance of the creditor and also held that for the same cause of action, a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act., would also be maintainable”, it noted.

The Court reiterated that Civil Courts are duty bound to take into account the sum paid or recovered as compensation in terms of Section 357 CrPC, while adjudicating the civil suit.

“The Hon’ble Supreme Court further held that civil courts must take into account the sum paid or recovered as compensation in terms of Section 357 Cr.P.C. by the competent criminal Court. In other words, both criminal and civil proceedings are maintainable and to meet these situations, Parliament consciously devised Section 357 Cr.P.C. This provision ensures that the compensation awarded in criminal proceedings is duly considered in civil cases, thereby preventing double recovery and promoting fairness in the judicial process”, it added.

The Court further observed that as per the language enunciated in Section 357 of CrPC, both criminal and civil proceedings are maintainable relating to the same matter, but at the time of awarding the compensation in any subsequent civil suit proceedings on the same matter, the concerned Court shall take into account any amount paid or recovered towards compensation under Section 357 of CrPC.

“Reverting to the case on hand, a perusal of the judgment in Crl.A.No.377 of 2010 of VII Addl. Sessions Judge, Guntur, (Ex.A.19), clearly reveals that the Criminal Court has not awarded any compensation in favour of the plaintiff. Accordingly, there was no duty cast upon the Trial Court to apply Section 357(5) Cr.P.C., while passing the decree under challenge and we hereby answer point No.1 in favour of the plaintiff”, it remarked.

Conclusion

Coming to the facts of the case, the Court noted that a serious injury not only imposes permanent physical limitations and disabilities, but also causes physical and mental stigma to the injured.

“The Trial Court, upon a thorough evaluation of the evidence and after recording well-reasoned findings, concluded that the defendants had caused injuries to the plaintiff., based on the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2. From the above discussion of evidence on record, we are of the opinion that the defendants inflicted injuries on the plaintiff. Accordingly, point No.2 is held in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants”, it held.

The Court was of the view that the Plaintiff is entitled to an enhanced amount of compensation. Hence, the Court awarded Rs. 4,80,000/- in respect of loss of income due to disability; Rs. 1,00,000/- in favour of medical bills expenses; Rs. 50,000/- in view of pain and suffering; Rs. 75,000/- towards attendant charges; and Rs. 1,50,000/- towards marital prospects, i.e., total Rs. 8,55,000/-.

Accordingly, the High Court partly allowed the Appeal Suit filed by the Plaintiff to the extent of enhancing the compensation from Rs.4,04,000/- to Rs.8,55,000/ @ 9% per annum from the date of suit till the date of realization, and dismissed the Appeal Suit of the Defendants.

Cause Title- Bhavanam China Venkata Reddy v. Dantla Subba Reddy and Others (Case Number: FIRST APPEAL NO: 1025/2016)

Click here to read/download the Judgment