Civil Suit For Damages Maintainable Despite Concurrent Criminal Proceedings U/S 357 CrPC: Andhra Pradesh High Court

For reference, Section 357(3) of CrPC, permits compensation to be granted to any person suffering loss or injury due to the action of the accused when no fine is imposed, and Section 357(5) provides that any subsequent civil suit must consider the compensation already awarded under the Section to avoid double benefit.

Noting that these provisions collectively empower the Court to determine compensation which victims are entitled to against the accused in civil proceedings, a division bench comprising Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Maheswara Rao Kuncheam stated,

“…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. Similarly, 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 Cr.P.C."

"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. In other words, the language enunciated in Section 357 of Cr.P.C., 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 Cr.P.C,” they added.

Facts:

The appellant/plaintiff in the present case was an agriculturist who had a property dispute with the respondents/defendants. Owing to the dispute, the defendants had unlawfully dismantled the plaintiff's wall and attacked him with a knife on the left temporal region (between the left eye and ear). Resultantly, the plaintiff suffered permanent disability to the extent of 85%, which not only disabled him from carrying out his manual work relating to agriculture, rice-mill, and sericulture unit, but also made him dependent on a daily attendant who charged Rs.3000 as monthly salary. The plaintiff had also bore Rs.5,00,000 on account of medical treatment.

As a result, the plaintiff initiated criminal proceedings against the defendants under Sections 307 (attempt to murder) and 326 (voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons) r/w Section 34 (acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention) of IPC. Accordingly, conviction was handed down under Section 326 and the 1st defendant was ordered to undergo three years of rigorous imprisonment.

In a concurrent civil suit seeking compensation for injuries sustained, when the plaintiff demanded compensation of Rs.20,00,000 from the defendants, the Trial Court granted a total compensation worth Rs.4,04,000/- with 9% interest per annum.

Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation, the plaintiff approached the High Court claiming enhancement of compensation. He submitted that the Trial Court had erred in not taking into consideration the Disability Certificate, which assessed the disability as 70%, as opposed to the Trial Court's assessment of 40%. He also submitted that his income was assessed very low, and that adequate compensation was not provided towards medical bills, marital prospects, attendant charges and suffering caused by the injury.

Subsequently, the defendants also challenged the Trial Court's order and alleged that the filing of a civil suit seeking compensation on account of personal injuries is without jurisdiction and liable to be set aside since the plaintiff has already initiated criminal proceedings against the defendants in connection with the same incident. They further submitted that compensation should not have been provided as it was the plaintiff and others who were aggressors and the defendants were only exercising their right to private defence.

Court's Findings:

The Court had to determine whether a civil suit filed for damages is maintainable despite the fact that the plaintiff has initiated criminal proceedings relating to the same matter against the same party.

After referring to Section 357(3) of CrPC, the Court concluded that while criminal courts can award compensation to victims, there is no legal bar on simultaneously pursuing a civil suit for damages from the same incident, with the only caveat that any compensation already awarded in one Court must be accounted for by the other, in order to prevent double recovery. Thus, the concurrent civil suit for damages was held to be maintainable.

The Court also had to determine whether the compensation awarded by the Trial Court was just and proper.

In light of the injuries suffered, the Court noted that medication is necessary and restricting compensation to the total bill alone would not be justified. Thus, it granted a total of Rs.1,00,000/- towards transportation to various out-stationed hospitals and other incidental expenses. Further, the Court granted Rs.4,80,000 towards the head of loss of income due to the disability caused.

Notably, the plaintiff was not offered any compensation on account of him being unmarried or towards the possibility of marriage. Noting that “marriage or companionship is an integral part of natural human life”, the Court ordered that the plaintiff was entitled to Rs.1,50,000/- towards marital prospects.

Further, the Court awarded Rs. 50,000 towards pain and suffering caused as a result of the accident, and Rs.75,000 towards the salary of the attendant, without whom the plaintiff could not travel.

Thus, in totality, the Court enhanced the compensation from Rs.4,04,000 to Rs.8,55,000 at 9% interest per annum.

Accordingly, the Court partly allowed the plaintiff's appeal and subsequently rejected the appeal filed by the defendants.

Case Details:

Case Number: FIRST APPEAL NO: 1025/2016

Case Title: Bhavanam China Venkata Reddy v. Dantla Subba Reddy and Others

Click Here To Read/Download Order