# Sharad Agrawal v. State of U.P. & Anr. 1680 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

- **Citation:** (2020) 1 ILRA 1678
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2019-09-25
- **Case number:** Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No. 35595 of 2019
- **Bench:** Karuna Nand Bajpayee
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/sharad-agrawal-v-state-of-u-p-anr-1680-indian-law-reports-allahabad-series-45038
- **Pages:** 10

## Headnote

A.G.A., Sri Aushim Luthra, Sri Manish
Tiwari

A. Simultaneous/parallel proceedings -
matter gave rise to both civil and criminal
liabilities - probate proceedings were
going on in civil court while forgery case
were going on in criminal court - mere
pendency of civil litigation (probate
proceedings) does not vitiate criminal
proceedings and does not absolve the
accused from criminal liability - both
proceedings can run concurrently.

The interference is ordinarily done by this Court
in those matters where it is found that the
ingredients of the criminal offence are not
made out from the allegations of the F.I.R. and
it is found that deliberately a criminal
complexion has been lent to a controversy
which is essentially of civil nature. But the
cases where rank forgery as reflected from the
allegations and the ingredients of offences are
apparently made out, the criminal prosecution
is not shut down just because of the pendency
of civil case. Punishment of imprisonments etc.
has to be awarded to the guilty persons in the
criminal forum while the civil damages or the
annulment of forged documents has to be done
in the civil forum. In cases of rank fraud and
forgery both the forums have got to be
necessarily approached to get complete relief
and in order to bring the guilty accused to
justice. (Para 11)

While addressing an hypothetical situation of
incongruent findings by different Courts on
identical
and
similar
issue
in
case
of
simultaneous proceedings in two forums,, the
Hon'ble Apex Court kept in perspective that the
decision of one Court has not been declared by
the legislature to be binding on other Court
always and has not been recognized as
relevant except under certain circumstances
and for certain limited purposes only. The only
relevant consideration to avoid such kind of
incongruity was to avoid the eventuality of
embarrassment. No strait jacket cut and dried
formula can be laid down in this regard and it
all depends from case to case and the nature
of two proceedings that are pending at two
forums in the light of which the Courts are
required to form their opinion whether twin
proceedings ought to be allowed to go
simultaneously or not and whether on ought to
be preferred to the other or whether one of
them deserves to be stayed till the other is
decided. (Para 14)

Application u/s 482 rejected. (E-10)

List of cases cited: -

## Text

1 All. Sumesh Sahani Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1679
a body corporate or a firm or any other
association of individuals.

10. In this regard, paragraph nos. 42
& 43 of the decision of Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of Aneeta Hoda and
others Vs. God Father Travels and
Tours Pvt. Limited and others, may be
referred, which are quoted hereinunder:

"42. .................... Applying the
doctrine of strict construction, we are of
the considered opinion that commission of
offence by the company is an express
condition precedent to attract the vicarious
liability of others. Thus, the words "as well
as the company" appearing in the Section
make it absolutely unmistakably clear that
when the company can be prosecuted, then
only the persons mentioned in the other
categories could be vicariously liable for
the offence subject to the averments in the
petition and proof thereof. One cannot be
oblivious of the fact that the company is a
juristic person and it has its own
respectability. If a finding is recorded
against it, it would create a concavity in its
reputation. There can be situations when
the corporate reputation is affected when a
director is indicted.

"43. In view of our aforesaid
analysis, we arrive at the irresistible
conclusion
that
for
maintaining
the
prosecution under Section 141 of the Act,
arraigning of a company as an accused is
imperative.
The
other
categories
of
offenders can only be brought in the
dragnet on the touchstone of vicarious
liability as the same has been stipulated in
the provision itself."

11. The similar view has been taken
by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the latest
judgment in the case of Himanshu Vs. B.
Shivamuthy & Anr. and held that the
provisions of Section 141 postulate that if
the person committing an offence under
Section 138 is a company, every person,
who at the time when the offence was
committed was in charge of or was
responsible to the company for the conduct
of the business of the company as well as
the company, shall be deemed to be guilty
of the offence and shall be liable to be
proceeded against and punished and in
absence of the company being arraigned as
an accused, a complaint against the
applicant was not maintainable.

12. From the aforesaid decisions of
the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as
provisions of Section 141, it is apparent
that if the "company" who has issued the
cheque, has not been arraigned as an
accused, than the complaint under Section
138 of N.I. Act cannot be processed.

13. In view of the above, the order
dated 2.5.2018 passed by Additional
Sessions Judge and order dated 30.4.2013
passed Judicial Magistrate Court No. 12
Jhansi, in Criminal Complaint Case No.
475 of 2013 cannot be sustained in the
eyes of law, and are hereby quashed.

14. The present application stands
allowed. No order as to costs.
----------
(2020)1ILR 1678

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 25.09.2019

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE KARUNA NAND BAJPAYEE, J.

Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No. 35595 of 2019

Sharad Agrawal ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Respondents
1680 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Anil Kumar Pathak, Sri Anuj Srivastava,
Sri G.S. Chaturvedi

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.G.A., Sri Aushim Luthra, Sri Manish
Tiwari

A. Simultaneous/parallel proceedings -
matter gave rise to both civil and criminal
liabilities - probate proceedings were
going on in civil court while forgery case
were going on in criminal court - mere
pendency of civil litigation (probate
proceedings) does not vitiate criminal
proceedings and does not absolve the
accused from criminal liability - both
proceedings can run concurrently.

The interference is ordinarily done by this Court
in those matters where it is found that the
ingredients of the criminal offence are not
made out from the allegations of the F.I.R. and
it is found that deliberately a criminal
complexion has been lent to a controversy
which is essentially of civil nature. But the
cases where rank forgery as reflected from the
allegations and the ingredients of offences are
apparently made out, the criminal prosecution
is not shut down just because of the pendency
of civil case. Punishment of imprisonments etc.
has to be awarded to the guilty persons in the
criminal forum while the civil damages or the
annulment of forged documents has to be done
in the civil forum. In cases of rank fraud and
forgery both the forums have got to be
necessarily approached to get complete relief
and in order to bring the guilty accused to
justice. (Para 11)

While addressing an hypothetical situation of
incongruent findings by different Courts on
identical
and
similar
issue
in
case
of
simultaneous proceedings in two forums,, the
Hon'ble Apex Court kept in perspective that the
decision of one Court has not been declared by
the legislature to be binding on other Court
always and has not been recognized as
relevant except under certain circumstances
and for certain limited purposes only. The only
relevant consideration to avoid such kind of
incongruity was to avoid the eventuality of
embarrassment. No strait jacket cut and dried
formula can be laid down in this regard and it
all depends from case to case and the nature
of two proceedings that are pending at two
forums in the light of which the Courts are
required to form their opinion whether twin
proceedings ought to be allowed to go
simultaneously or not and whether on ought to
be preferred to the other or whether one of
them deserves to be stayed till the other is
decided. (Para 14)

Application u/s 482 rejected. (E-10)

List of cases cited: -

1. Chandra Deo Singh Vs. Prokash Chandra
Bose AIR 1963 SC 1430

2.
Vadilal Panchal Vs.
Dattatraya Dulaji
Ghadigaonker AIR 1960 SC 1113

3. Smt. Nagawwa Vs. Veeranna Shivalingappa
Konjalgi 1976 3 SCC 736

4. R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab AIR 1960 SC
866

5. State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal 1992
SCC(Cr.) 426

6. Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank Ltd. Vs. State
through Deputy Superintendent of Police and
anr. 2014 (3) SCC 755

7. M.S. Shariff Vs. The State of Madras and ors
AIR 1954 SC 397

8. Puran Singh and ors Vs State of U.P. and anr
Application U/s 482 No. 12993 of 2004

(Delivered by Hon'ble Karuna Nand Bajpayee, J.)

1. Sri Aushim Luthra, Advocate has
filed his vakalatnama on behalf of opposite
party no.2, which is taken on record.

2. This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C.
has been filed seeking the quashing of the
cognizance order dated 16.1.2018 passed
by
the
Metropolitan
Magistrate-III,
1 All. Sharad Agrawal Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1681
Kanpur Nagar in Case No. 1663 of 2018,
State versus Sharad Agarwal and others
and revisional order dated 24.12.2018
passed by the Sessions Judge, Kanpur
Nagar in Criminal Revision No. 231 of
2018, Sharad Agarwal versus State of U.P.
and others whereby the aforesaid criminal
revision has been dismissed affirming the
order dated 16.1.2018 of the Magistrate.
The applicant has also sought for quashing
of the N.B.W. order dated 31.8.2019
passed by the Special Judicial Magistrate,
Kanpur Nagar as well as the entire
proceedings of aforesaid Case No. 1663 of
2018, State versus Sharad Agarwal and
others pending before the court below.

3. Heard Sri G.S. Chaturvedi, learned
Senior counsel assisted by Sri Anuj
Srivastava and Sri Anil Kumar Pathak,
Advocates for the applicant, learned
A.G.A. for the State and Sri Manish
Tiwari, Advocate assisted by Sri Aushim
Luthra, learned counsel for opposite party
no.2. Perused the record.

4. Submission of learned counsel for
the applicant is that probate proceedings
are going on in the civil court where the
same issues are to be adjudicated and,
therefore, the criminal proceedings are not
desirable to be adopted in the case. Further
submission is that there is no such express
evidence of denial of signature on the will
and, therefore, the will cannot be said to be
forged. It is also submitted that in the case
of co-accused the Court has stayed the
proceeding of the case, hence the present
applicant may also be given the same
relief. Certain other contentions have also
been raised by the applicant's counsel but
all of them relate to disputed questions of
fact. The court has also been called upon
to adjudge the testimonial worth of
prosecution evidence and evaluate the
same on the basis of various intricacies of
factual details which have been touched
upon by the learned counsel. The veracity
and credibility of material furnished on
behalf of the prosecution has been
questioned and false implication has been
pleaded.

5. Learned counsel appearing for
opposite party no. 2 while rebutting the
submissions of learned counsel for the
applicant has submitted that there is
overwhelming evidence collected during
the investigation affirming the presence of
testator at the relevant point of time in the
hospital at Medanta situated at Gurgaon,
which is hundreds of miles away from the
place of execution of the will, which is
said to be executed at Kanpur and thus the
claim of her presence at a different place at
the time of execution of will is nothing but
implied denial of the signature and even if
it has not been done in so many words it
does not signify anything else than denial
of the genuineness of the signature.
Further submission is that the contents of
the will also reveal some expressions
which conclusively prove the concocted
nature of the document. Learned counsel
has tried to submit that one of the
witnesses of the said will contains the
parentage written as 'late' Shiv Mangal
Singh. while on the day of the will he was
very much alive and died much later
which also proves that on the alleged day
there was no such will executed and the
forgery is glaringly apparent on the face of
record. Regarding the pendency of probate
proceeding it has been submitted that if a
particular document is forged it naturally
can be cancelled or annulled only by the
competent civil court and, therefore, the
proceedings in the civil court have got to
be resorted to for that purpose. So far as
the law with regard to maintainability of
1682 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
criminal prosecution in regard to matters
which also disclose civil liability is
concerned, the same has been well settled
by a catena of Apex Court's decisions. In
many of the disputes the facts and
circumstances are such that the matter
gives rise to civil and the criminal
liabilities both. The matters with regard to
civil liability are decided on the basis of
preponderance of probability while the
matters relating to the criminal liability are
to be decided on the basis of proof beyond
reasonable doubt. Both of the proceedings
can
go
on
against
an
accused
simultaneously and he can be held liable
for both the liabilities. The criminal
prosecution and the proceedings with
regard to civil liability of the same accused
are not mutually exclusive to each other.
The criminal prosecution should not
necessarily wait till the decision of the
civil court.

6. It may be observed that the law
regarding sufficiency of material which
may justify the summoning of accused and
also the court's decision to proceed against
him in a given case is also well settled.
The court has to eschew itself from
embarking upon a roving enquiry into the
last details of the case. It is also not
advisable to adjudge whether the case shall
ultimately end in conviction or not. Only a
prima facie satisfaction of the court about
the existence of sufficient ground to
proceed in the matter is required.

7. Through a catena of decisions
given by Hon'ble Apex Court this legal
aspect has been expatiated upon at length
and the law that has evolved over a period
of several decades is too well settled. The
cases of (1) Chandra Deo Singh Vs.
Prokash Chandra Bose AIR 1963 SC
1430 , (2) Vadilal Panchal Vs. Dattatraya
Dulaji Ghadigaonker AIR 1960 SC 1113
and (3) Smt. Nagawwa Vs. Veeranna
Shivalingappa Konjalgi 1976 3 SCC 736
may be usefully referred to in this regard.

8. The Apex Court decisions given in
the case of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of
Punjab AIR 1960 SC 866 and in the case
of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal
1992 SCC(Cr.) 426 have also recognized
certain categories by way of illustration
which may justify the quashing of a
complaint or charge sheet. Some of them
are akin to the illustrative examples given
in the above referred case of Smt.
Nagawwa Vs. Veeranna Shivalingappa
Konjalgi 1976 3 SCC 736. The cases
where the allegations made against the
accused or the evidence collected by the
Investigating Officer do not constitute any
offence or where the allegations are absurd
or extremely improbable impossible to
believe or where prosecution is legally
barred or where criminal proceeding is
malicious and malafide instituted with
ulterior motive of grudge and vengeance
alone may be the fit cases for the High
Court in which the criminal proceedings
may be quashed. Hon'ble Apex Court in
Bhajan Lal's case has recognized certain
categories in which Section-482 of Cr.P.C.
or Article-226 of the Constitution may be
successfully invoked.

9. Illumined by the case law referred
to herein above, this Court has adverted to
the entire record of the case.

10. A perusal of record of the present
case shows that the F.I.R. in the present
case was lodged by the opposite party no.
2 against the applicant and other coaccused persons. Allegation is that the
wife of the opposite party no. 2 namely
Asha Lata Sharma (since deceased) was
1 All. Sharad Agrawal Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1683
owner of the house in dispute. She died on
23.5.2013
and
thereafter
being
her
husband as well as only legal heir, the
opposite party no. 2 became owner of the
said house. Allegation is that the applicant
with the aid of other co-accused persons
had manipulated a forged will deed of late
Asha Lata Sharma and had claimed
ownership over the said house. As per the
F.I.R. the alleged Will Deed on the basis
of which the applicant was claiming his
rights, was executed on 02.5.2013 in
Kanpur whereas in fact on that date Asha
Lata Sharma was in Medanta Hospital,
Gurgaon in connection with her treatment.
Allegation in the F.I.R. is that on the date
of execution of alleged Will Deed the wife
of the opposite party no. 2 was not present
in Kanpur but the applicant had forged her
signature and got the aforesaid Will
prepared in his favour. Several other
illegalities and anomalous features have
also been mentioned in the F.I.R. showing
the alleged Will in favour of the applicant
of being a forged document. During
investigation the investigating officer had
recorded the statement of the first
informant who had fully supported the
prosecution version. He had also given
treatment papers as well as train ticket of
Asha Lata Sharma to the Investigating
Officer showing her presence at Medanta
Hospital, Gurgaon on 2.5.2013. The said
documents are the part of case diary and
are annexed as annexure no. 8 to the
present application. In the alleged Will
Deed which was executed in favour of the
applicant,
witnesses
of
margin
are
mentioned as Ravindra Bhushan Singh son
of late Shiv Mangal Singh and Brahma
Dutt Mishra but on that date i.e. on
2.5.2013 father of Ravindra Bhushan
Singh namely Dr. Shiv Mangal Singh was
quite alive. It is also relevant to note that
some of the witnesses and executor of the
Will
have
given
conflicting
statement/affidavits in connection with the
present case regarding their presence at the
time of execution of alleged Will Deed.
Therefore, it cannot be said at all that there
is no evidence against the applicant. It is
also well settled law that mere pendency
of a civil litigation (i.e. a probate case as is
in the present case) does not vitiate
criminal proceedings and does not absolve
the accused from his criminal liability and
both proceedings can run concurrently.

11. The interference is ordinarily
done by this Court only in those matters
where it is found that the ingredients of the
criminal offences are not made out from
the allegations of the F.I.R. and it is found
that deliberately a criminal complexion
has been lent to a controversy which is
essentially of civil nature. But the cases
where rank forgery is reflected from the
allegations and the ingredients of offences
are apparently made out, the criminal
prosecution is not shut down just because
of the pendency of civil case. Punishment
of imprisonments etc. has to be awarded to
the guilty persons in the criminal forum
while the civil damages or the annulment
of forged documents has to be done in the
civil forum. In cases of rank fraud and
forgery both the forums have got to be
necessarily approached to get complete
relief and in order to bring the guilty
accused to justice. In the present matter, it
cannot be said that the allegations are
deficient and they do not make out any
criminal offence or that deliberately a
criminal complexion has been lent to a
dispute which is otherwise of pure civil
nature.

12. The position of law on this point
is clearly discernible from the following
observation of the Hon. Supreme Court in
1684 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the case of Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank
Ltd.
vs.
State
through
Deputy
Superintendent of Police and Anr, 2014
(3) SCC 755 :

"10. It is also a law settled by
this Court and reiterated in the case of
Monica Kumar (Dr.) vs. State of U.P.,
2008
(8)
SCC
781
that
criminal
proceedings can continue even if the
allegation discloses a civil dispute also. It
is only when the dispute is purely civil in
nature but still the party chooses to initiate
criminal
proceeding,
the
criminal
proceeding may be quashed. For such
purpose also the Court, save and accept in
very exceptional circumstances would not
look to any document relied upon by the
defence."

13. There are many other similar
authorities which may be cited in this
regard but that does not appear to be
needed.

14. In fact, we have for our guidance
the decision given by the Constitution
Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of M.S. Shariff versus The State of
Madras and others, A.I.R. 1954 S.C.397
whereby the Apex Court went to the extent
of giving preference to the criminal
prosecution in comparison to the civil
proceeding. Sometimes, arguments are
raised at the Bar that simultaneous
proceedings in two forums, one civil and
another criminal, are likely to result in
incongruous findings and that possibility
cannot be ruled out when different Courts
at different point of time return their
findings on identical or similar issues.
With regard to such kind of contention, the
Constitution Bench of the Apex Court did
not attribute any great significance to such
hypothetical eventuality and did not
reckon
the
same
a
very
relevant
consideration. It was kept in perspective
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the
decision of one Court has not been
declared by the legislature to be binding
on the other Court always and has not been
recognized as relevant except under
certain circumstances and for certain
limited purposes only. The only relevant
consideration to avoid such kind of
incongruity was to avoid the eventuality of
embarrassment. Observations were also
made by the Constitution Bench which
underlined the desirability of earlier
conclusion of criminal prosecution so that
the evidence may be adduced in the Court
by the witnesses before their memories
fade to become untrustworthy. Even the
social need to see that the guilty be
punished at the earliest with regard to the
crime committed by them was also taken
note of by the Court. In view of the Apex
Court, no straight jacket cut and dried
formula can be laid down in this regard
and it all depends from case to case and
the nature of the two proceedings that are
pending at two forums in the light of
which the Courts are required to form their
opinion whether twin proceedings ought to
be allowed to go on simultaneously or not
and whether one ought to be preferred to
the other or whether one of them deserves
to be stayed till the other is decided. It may
be
apt
to
quote
herein-below
the
observations made by the Constitution
Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
given in Shariff's case (supra) which read
as thus:-

"As between the civil and the
criminal proceedings we are of the opinion
that the criminal matters should be given
precedence. There is some difference of
opinion in the High Courts of India on this
point. No hard and fast rule ban. be laid
1 All. Sharad Agrawal Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1685
down but we do not consider that the
possibility of conflicting decisions in the
civil and criminal courts is a relevant
consideration. The law envisages such an
eventuality when it expressly refrains from
making the decision of one court binding
on the other, or even relevant, except for
certain limited purposes, such as sentence
or
damages.
The
only
relevant
consideration here is the likelihood of
embarrassment.

Another factor which weighs
with us is that a civil suit often drags on
for years and it is undesirable that a
criminal prosecution should wait till
everybody concerned has forgotten all
about the crime. The public interests
demand that criminal justice should be
swift and sure; that the guilty should be
punished while the events are still fresh in
the public mind and that the innocent
should be absolved as early as is
consistent with a fair and impartial trial.
Another reason is that it is undesirable to
let things glide till memories have grown
too dim to trust. This, however, is not a
hard and fast rule. Special considerations
obtaining in any particular case might
make some other course more expedient
and just. For example, the civil case or the
other criminal proceeding may be so hear
its end as to make it inexpedient to stay it
in order to give precedence to a
prosecution order of under section 476.
But in this case we are of the view that the
civil suits should be stayed till the criminal
proceedings have finished."

15. It may also be useful to extract
the relevant observations made by the
coordinate Bench of this Court in the case
of Pooran Singh and others versus State
of U.P. and another, Case:-Application
U/S 482 No. 12993 of 2004 whereby the
issues about the maintainability of parallel
proceedings,
their
feasibility
and
permissibility were gone into by His
Lordship. The relevant pronouncements of
the Apex Court were relied upon and
detailed references to them were also made
and it was concluded that the proceeding
in a civil case and the proceeding of the
criminal case can well go on together. The
relevant
portions
of
the
aforesaid
judgments may be reproduced hereinbelow.

"9. The issue is whether the
impugned complaint or proceedings are
maintainable, since the matter is engaging
the attention of the Civil Court in a duly
constituted suit. It is no longer res integra
that on the basis of same facts, if a civil
wrong and an offence are both disclosed,
the
civil
and
criminal
courts
are
independent of the other to determine
each, in their respective jurisdiction,
untrammelled by the findings of the other.
It is not that the findings of the civil court
on the same fact in issue in a suit before it
would work as res judicata, or as an issue
estoppel to bar the criminal courts'
jurisdiction, or to shut the mouth of parties
in proceedings before the criminal court.
The two courts in the two jurisdiction, civil
and criminal, can reach contrary findings.
Also, the judgement of the civil court, as
such,
is
not
relevant
in
criminal
proceedings, except to the extent that it is
provided to the contrary, by sections 40 to
44 of the Indian Evidence Act. That is not
admittedly the case here. It would have
been different if the act alleged a criminal
offence,
in
proceedings
before
the
Magistrate what was essentially a civil
dispute, and not one that was both a civil
wrong and a criminal offence. In the
former case, proceedings before the
criminal court can well be quashed; but,
not in the latter.
1686 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

10. In a case where an act is
both a criminal offence and a civil wrong,
the law appears to be consistent that both
the civil court and the criminal court
would have jurisdiction independent of the
other. As already said, both Courts can
reach contrary conclusions. In certain
cases,
depending
upon
the
facts,
proceedings before the Civil Court or the
Criminal Court may be stayed pending
outcome of the case before the other. But
on
those
considerations
proceedings
before the Criminal Court or before the
Civil Court, cannot be quashed or scuttled.
In matters where one of the proceedings
are stayed, depending on facts obtaining
in a particular case, it is to avoid the
likelihood of embarrassment. An early
Constitution
Bench
decision
of
the
Supreme Court on the point is M.S.
Sheriff and another v. State of Madras
and others1 where their Lordships held
thus:-

(quoted
paragraph
of
their
Lordships in M.S. Sheriff (supra) already
extracted above is being omitted to avoid
repetition).

11.The decision aforesaid of
their Lordships' was reiterated in the
Constitution Bench decision in Iqbal
Singh
Marwah
and
another
vs.
Meenakshi Marwah and another2, where
the earlier decision in M.S. Sheriff
(Supra) was endorsed :-

32. Coming to the last contention
that an effort should be made to avoid
conflict of findings between the civil and
criminal courts, it is necessary to point out
that the standard of proof required in the
two proceedings are entirely different.
Civil cases are decided on the basis of
preponderance of evidence while in a
criminal case the entire burden lies on the
prosecution and proof beyond reasonable
doubt has to be given. There is neither any
statutory provision nor any legal principle
that
the
findings
recorded
in
one
proceeding may be treated as final or
binding in the other, as both the cases
have to be decided on the basis of the
evidence
adduced
therein.
While
examining a similar contention in an
appeal against an order directing filing of
a complaint under Section 476 of the old
Code, the following observations made by
a Constitution Bench in M.S. Sheriff v.
State of Madras give a complete answer to
the problem posed:(AIR p.399, paras 1516)

(quoted
paragraph
of
their
Lordship's decision in M.S. Seriff (Supra)
already extracted above is omitted)

12. Reiterating the principle in
unambiguous words, the Supreme Court in
P. Swaroopa Rani vs. M. Hari Narayana
alias Hari Babu held:-

11. It is, however, well settled
that in a given case, civil proceedings and
criminal
proceedings
can
proceed
simultaneously. Whether civil proceedings
or criminal proceedings shall be stayed
depends upon the facts and circumstances
of each case.

---------------------------

18. It goes without saying that
the respondent shall be at liberty to take
recourse to such a remedy which is
available to him in law. We have
interfered with the impugned order only
because in law simultaneous proceedings
of a civil and a criminal case is
permissible.(emphasis by Court).

13. What is clearly deducible
from the above authorities is that it is not
the law that proceedings before the
Criminal Court are to be quashed because
the same fact in issue, that is subject
matter of criminal proceedings between
parties, is also the subject matter of a
pending civil suit. In certain situations,
1 All. Sharad Agrawal Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1687
however, proceedings of the Criminal
Court, or may be, the Civil Court can be
stayed pending decision of the other in order to
avoid embarrassment to the parties. However,
in those cases where stay of one or the other
proceedings is granted pending decision in the
other, the stayed proceedings would revive to
be carried to their logical conclusion,
irrespective of the outcome in the other
jurisdiction. This is so because the Criminal
and
the
Civil
Court
are
completely
independent of the other, and, on the same fact
in issue between parties, they may arrive at
contrary conclusions. The judgment of one in
no way binds the other. Thus, the prayer to
quash criminal proceedings on this ground
cannot be granted."

16. In the light of what has been
discussed above, the submission of learned
counsel for the applicant that the criminal
proceedings should be quashed in the
wake of pendency of probate proceeding
appears to be untenable. This Court also
does not see any good reason to stay these
proceedings as the commission of criminal
offences is unmistakably apparent on the
face of record.

17. Even the other submissions made
by the applicant's learned counsel call for
adjudication on pure questions of fact
which may be adequately adjudicated
upon only by the trial court and while
doing so even the submissions made on
points
of
law
can
also
be
more
appropriately gone into by the trial court in
this case. This Court does not deem it
proper, and therefore cannot be persuaded
to have a pre-trial before the actual trial
begins. A threadbare discussion of various
facts and circumstances, as they emerge
from the allegations made against the
accused, is being purposely avoided by the
Court for the reason, lest the same might
cause any prejudice to either side during
trial. But it shall suffice to observe that the
perusal of the F.I.R. and the material
collected by the Investigating Officer on
the basis of which the charge sheet has
been submitted makes out a prima facie
case against the accused at this stage and
there appear to be sufficient ground for
proceeding against the accused. I do not
find any justification to quash the charge
sheet or the proceedings against the
applicants arising out of them as the case
does not fall in any of the categories
recognized by the Apex Court which may
justify their quashing.

18. So far as the order passed
with regard to co-accused Sitanshu Dutta
is concerned, his case was on an entirely
different footing. No role had been
assigned to co-accused with regard to
fabrication of the alleged Will deed and
there was hardly anything to indicate that
the co-accused staked any right or claim
over the property on the basis of the
allegedly forged Will deed. Even other
grounds which persuaded the Court to lean
favourably with regard to co-accused are
not at all common and there is hardly
anything observed in the aforesaid order
passed with regard to him which can be
made use of for the purpose of giving any
advantage to the present applicant who
appears to be one of the principal
offenders in the case.

19. The order passed by revisional
court also does not suffer from any such
infirmity or illegality which may call for
any interference by this court as the same
is well substantiated with relevant law.

20. The prayer for quashing the same
is refused as I do not see any illegality,
impropriety and incorrectness in the
1688 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
impugned orders or the proceedings under
challenge. There is no abuse of court's
process either.

21. The application is accordingly,
dismissed.
----------
(2020)1ILR 1687

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 29.11.2019

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAM KRISHNA GAUTAM, J.

Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No. 37532 of 2019

Vijendra Singh & Ors. ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicants:
Sri Sunil Kumar

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
A.G.A.

A. Complaint - similar complaint occurred
on different dates with little variance -
present occurrence is not subsequent
occurrence
to
previous
instituted
complaint
rather
it
is
a
previous
occurrence of another date.

B. Inherent Jurisdiction - Section 482 -
Cr.P.C. - Scope - the Trial Court and not
the High Court is expected to analytically
analyze the facts and factual matrix of
case.

Application u/s 482 rejected. (E-10)
List of cases cited: -

1. M/s Pepsi Food Ltd. & anr Vs. Special
Judicial Magistrate & ors 1998 UPCr.R 118

2. Mahboob and ors Vs. State of U.P. and anr
2017 (2) JIC 320 (All) (LB)
3. Smt. Shiv Kumar and ors Vs. State of U.P.
and anr 2017 (2) JIC 589 (All) (LB)B

4. Hariram Verma and 4 Ors Vs. State of U.P.
and anr 2017 (99) ALL CC 104

5. Paul George Vs. State 2002 Cri.L.J. 996

6. S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. Neeta Bhalla
(2005) 8 SCC 89

7. Anita Malhotra Vs. Apparel Export Promotion
Council (2012) 1 SCC 520

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ram Krishna
Gautam, J.)

1. This Application, under Section
482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973,
has been filed by the Applicants, Vijendra
Singh, Raghuraj Singh and Udham Singh,
against State of U.P. and Lekhraj, Son of
Ratan Singh, with a prayer for quashing of
entire criminal proceeding, including,
setting aside summoning order, dated
17.7.2019,
passed
by
the
Judicial
Magistrate, Jewar, Gautam Buddh Nagar,
in Complaint Case No. 103 of 2017
(Incorrectly
mentioned
as
Criminal
Complaint Case No.103 of 2015 in the
Application), Lekhraj vs. Vijendra and
others, for ofences, punishable, under
Sections 323, 504 and 506 of IPC, Police
Station- Jewar, Distric-Gautam Buddh
Nagar

2. Learned counsel for applicants
argued that an application, under Section
156(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973, (In short 'Cr.P.C.'), has been filed by
Mukesh against Kishan Singh, Vikas @
Bablu, Girdhari Lal Saini and Shyam Lal
Saini, for an occurrence, alleged to be of
4.1.2017, wherein, the Magistrate took
cognizance over it, treating it to be a
complaint
case,
and
examined
the
complainant, Mukesh, under Section 200