High Court of Judicature at Bombay Dismisses Criminal Writ Petition Challenging Stay of Criminal Proceedings — Trial Court’s Discretion to Stay Upheld. The court found no jurisdictional error in the Magistrate’s order staying the complaint under Section 13 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1981, pending the High Court’s decision on the management’s writ petition against the reinstatement order.

Criminal writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Navapur, staying the criminal complaint proceedings.

The petitioner sought quashing of the order dated 29 June 2009 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Navapur, in S.T.C. No.69 of 2008, staying the criminal complaint filed under Section 13 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1981.

The Judicial Magistrate stayed the criminal proceedings on the ground that the High Court had granted interim relief staying the underlying School Tribunal order and that proceeding further would be against judicial propriety. The petitioner contended that the stay was unjustified as the High Court had not actually stayed the criminal proceedings.

School Tribunal, Nashik, in Appeal No. DHL/31/99 allowed the petitioner’s appeal and ordered reinstatement with full back wages on 13 January 2006. Management filed Writ Petition No.2577 of 2006 challenging that order; the High Court granted interim relief on 7 September 2007. Petitioner filed Letters Patent Appeal No.175 of 2007 against the interim relief order.

Whether the Judicial Magistrate was justified in staying the criminal proceedings under Section 13 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1981, pending the outcome of the management’s writ petition challenging the School Tribunal’s reinstatement order. Whether the High Court should exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution to quash the Magistrate’s discretionary order staying proceedings.

The petitioner argued that the High Court’s order dated 7 September 2007 in Writ Petition No.2577 of 2006 had only called for records and not stayed the criminal proceedings; the Magistrate misread the order. The petitioner further contended that non-compliance with the School Tribunal’s order had already taken place and any subsequent reversal would not absolve the respondents of the offence committed. Reliance was placed on authorities emphasizing the binding nature of interim orders and strict compliance with statutory provisions. The respondents argued that the High Court intended to stay the order of the School Tribunal, and the reference to prayer clause (B) instead of (D) was a clerical error, as acknowledged by the petitioner himself in his Letters Patent Appeal. They submitted that judicial propriety required the criminal court to stay its hands when the validity of the underlying Tribunal order was pending before the High Court, and that the trial court had rightly exercised its discretion.

When a criminal complaint is based on an order of a subordinate tribunal whose validity is under challenge before the High Court, the trial court may, in its discretion, stay the proceedings to avoid conflicting decisions, provided such discretion is exercised reasonably and with due regard to judicial propriety. The High Court will not interfere with such an order under Articles 226 and 227 unless there is a jurisdictional error or perversity.

Furthermore, it appears that the Hon'ble High Court has granted the interim reliefs in terms of prayer clause (B) of the said Writ Petition and also expedited the hearing thereof. In view of this position on record, I am of the opinion that as the very legality of the said judgment of the School Tribunal, Nashik is being considered by the Hon'le High Court, in view of the Judicial propriety, it will not be proper to proceed further with the present proceeding. After giving anxious consideration to the submissions made by the parties before me, in my opinion, the trial court has exercised its discretion in staying the criminal proceedings and the same need not be interfered with in the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

The petitioner, terminated as an Assistant Teacher, appealed to the School Tribunal, Nashik, which ordered reinstatement with full back wages on 13 January 2006. Despite requests, he was not allowed to resume duties, prompting him to file Complaint S.T.C. No.69 of 2008 under Section 13 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1981, before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Navapur. The management challenged the Tribunal’s order in Writ Petition No.2577 of 2006, in which the High Court granted interim relief on 7 September 2007. Pending the writ petition, the respondents applied for stay of the criminal proceedings, and the Magistrate, by order dated 29 June 2009, stayed the same. The petitioner then filed this Criminal Writ Petition No.710 of 2009 under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution for quashing the stay order. The High Court heard the matter on admission and by consent made rule returnable forthwith, finally dismissing the petition on 7 January 2010.

• Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1981: 13
• Constitution of India: 226, 227