Pendency of a civil suit does not mandate the quashing or stay of independent criminal proceedings.

The petitioner, a candidate for the Indian National Congress in the 2016 Assembly Elections, allegedly claimed in a press conference and an election affidavit to have passed his B.Com examination from Dibrugarh University in 1981

An FIR was lodged alleging that RTI queries revealed the petitioner had actually failed the examination, and that he had manufactured a forged marksheet to deceive voters

Following an investigation, the police filed a charge-sheet under Sections 468/471 of the IPC, and the SDJM(S), Jorhat, took cognizance of the offences on 28.10.2020

Meanwhile, the petitioner filed a civil suit (Title Suit No. 49/2017) seeking a declaration that his 1981 results and marksheet were correct

The petitioner moved the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the criminal proceedings, primarily arguing that the matter was civil in nature and pending adjudication

1. Whether the criminal proceedings should be quashed on the ground that a civil suit regarding the authenticity of the educational qualification is pending

2. Whether the informants had the locus standi to file an FIR in a matter pertaining to election documents

3. Whether the allegations in the FIR and the materials in the charge-sheet prima facie constitute the offences charged

The court primarily applied Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. regarding the inherent powers of the High Court to quash proceedings

It relied on the "rarest of rare" guidelines for quashing established in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, specifically noting that quashing is permissible only if allegations, taken at face value, do not constitute an offence

It further applied the principles from Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, which mandate that courts should not thwart investigations or scuttle proceedings at the initial stage unless they represent a miscarriage of justice

Regarding the overlap of civil and criminal law, the court cited K.G. Premshanker v. Inspector of Police, holding that civil court decisions are not automatically binding on criminal courts unless they meet the criteria of Sections 40-43 of the Evidence Act

The court reasoned that the criminal proceedings were no longer at the initial stage, as cognizance had already been taken and the matter was pending trial

It rejected the petitioner's argument that the pending title suit necessitated a stay or quashing of the criminal case, noting that criminal liability for forgery and cheating is determined independently of civil consequences

The court observed that civil cases are decided on a "preponderance of evidence," whereas criminal cases require "proof beyond reasonable doubt," making the outcomes non-interdependent

Furthermore, the court found that the allegations in the FIR, supported by the RTI findings from Dibrugarh University, prima facie established a case for trial under Sections 468/471 IPC

The court also dismissed the locus standi argument, clarifying that any person can set the criminal law in motion by filing an FIR

It held that the pendency of a civil suit does not bar a criminal prosecution for forgery, nor can a criminal case be kept in abeyance indefinitely awaiting a civil decree

The petition was dismissed, and the interim stay on the proceedings of G.R. Case No. 903/2016 was vacated