Perjury complaint appeals and stay of civil suits: criminal prosecution may take precedence over parallel civil proceedings.

Under section 476B read with section 195(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, an appeal lay to the Supreme Court because the statutory fiction treats a Division Bench of a High Court as subordinate to the court to which appealable decrees or sentences from that Bench would ordinarily go. On the facts, the High Court's discretion to direct a perjury complaint was properly exercised, so the complaint proceedings were upheld. Where civil suits and criminal prosecution were proceeding in parallel, the criminal case was held to deserve precedence to avoid embarrassment to the accused, and the civil suits were stayed until the criminal prosecution concluded.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether an appeal lies under section 476B of the Criminal Procedure Code from an order of a Division Bench of a High Court directing a complaint for perjury; (ii) whether, on the facts, the complaint proceedings should continue and the connected civil suits should be stayed pending the criminal prosecution.

Issue (i): whether an appeal lies under section 476B of the Criminal Procedure Code from an order of a Division Bench of a High Court directing a complaint for perjury

Analysis: Section 476B confers a right of appeal where a complaint has been made under section 476, and section 195(3) determines the appellate forum by a statutory fiction of subordination to the court to which appeals ordinarily lie from the appealable decrees or sentences of the former court. A Division Bench of a High Court is therefore treated as subordinate to the Supreme Court for this purpose because appealable decrees or sentences from such a Bench ordinarily lie only to that Court.

Conclusion: An appeal did lie to the Supreme Court.

Issue (ii): whether, on the facts, the complaint proceedings should continue and the connected civil suits should be stayed pending the criminal prosecution

Analysis: The only relevant consideration for the complaint proceedings was whether it was expedient in the interests of justice to order an inquiry and complaint. The material before the High Court justified its discretion, and there was no reason to interfere with that view. As between the civil suits and the criminal prosecution, criminal proceedings were entitled to precedence because simultaneous trial could embarrass the accused and criminal justice should ordinarily proceed without undue delay; the possibility of conflicting findings was not itself decisive.

Conclusion: The order directing the complaint was upheld, and the civil suits were directed to be stayed until the criminal prosecution concluded.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed, while the connected civil suits were stayed in favour of the criminal prosecution.

Ratio Decidendi: Under section 476B read with section 195(3), an appeal lies to the court to which appealable decrees or sentences of the former court would ordinarily be carried, and in conflicts between parallel civil and criminal proceedings, criminal prosecution ordinarily takes precedence where embarrassment would otherwise result.

---