A Court of civil jurisdiction cannot pass an order of stay of proceedings pending before a Criminal Court /Tribunal/adjudicatory body

The Delhi High Court in the matter of Harinder Singh Kochar vs. Blue Coast Infrastructure, FAO (OS) 8/2020 and CM APPL. 3425/2020 decided on 28.01.2020 held that a civil court cannot be permitted to pass orders pertaining to power and jurisdiction of criminal courts and other adjudicatory fora.
Facts
The appeal arose out of an interlocutory order passed in an IA filed in a civil suit wherein the issue was of disbursal of the amount deposited by the Defendants/Respondents in the trial Court on a pro rata basis to not only the Plaintiffs before the Court, but all other Claimants whose claims against the Defendants/Respondents were pending adjudication. By way of the impugned order the Ld. Single judge directed that “the Plaintiffs herein will not proceed with other coercive proceedings against the Defendants in respect of the dues claimed in the suit”. In the present appeal, the Plaintiffs/Appellants averred that these “other coercive proceedings” included complaints filed by some of the Plaintiffs under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the proceedings before the National Company Law Tribunal and contempt proceedings in different jurisdictions which could not have been restrained by the learned Single Judge.
Issue
Whether a court of original civil jurisdiction pass a stay order with respect to proceedings ongoing before courts of other jurisdictions
Ratio
The Delhi High Court held that this Court as a civil court exercising original jurisdiction is constrained to act within the boundaries of the CPC and additionally by the Delhi High Court Act,1966. A Court exercising civil jurisdiction cannot pass orders in relation to the powers and jurisdiction of a Criminal Court or any other Tribunal/adjudicatory body. In other words, it is for the Courts exercising their respective jurisdictions viz., the Court of the learned Magistrate dealing with the complaint under Section 138 NI Act or the NCLT dealing with petitions before it or contempt proceedings arising from those proceedings, to deal with the submissions that the parties before those Courts may make, and pass appropriate orders.
Therefore, the Delhi High Court held that the impugned order as far as it sought to restrain the Appellants/Plaintiffs from continuing other coercive proceedings, which include the proceedings pending in the various Courts under Section 138 of the NI Act, the contempt proceedings, the proceedings before NCLT and the execution proceedings, was ex facie illegal.