Nanhey and Others vs State of U.P. and Others

Ram Autar Singh, J.—This criminal revision has been directed against the judgment and order dated 17.6.1988 passed by IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Jalaun at Orai in Criminal Revision No. 242 of 1987 Tulsi Ram v. Nanhe and Ors. wherein the revision has been allowed and the order dated 21.8.1987 passed by the trial court in Complaint Case No. 201 of 1986 has been set aside and the case has been sent back to the court below for trial in accordance with law.

The brief facts arising out of the case are that the respondent No. 2 Tulsi Ram instituted a complaint case bearing No. 201 of 1986 Tulsi Ram v. Nanhe and Ors. under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B I.P.C., P.S. Kalpi, District Jalaun with this allegation that the respondent No. 2 Tulsi Ram was having a dwelling house in village Har Raipur and some agricultural land in village Gargawa and Har Raipur within the circle of P.S. Kalpi, District Jalaun, over which he was having peaceful possession, but on 30.4.1984 the revisionists Nanhe and Veerendra got executed fictitious sale deed in their favour in respect of the landed property of the respondent No. 2 Tulsi Ram. The said sale deed was prepared by accused Mohd. Faruqee whereas accused Gulbadan Singh and Hirdai Narain stood attesting witnesses to the same. The respondent No. 2 Tulsi Ram came to know about the forgery of sale deed executed in favour of above persons, he then filed criminal complaint in the trial court. The statement of the complainant u/s 200 and the statements of the witnesses u/s 202 of Cr.P.C. were recorded, on the basis of which the trial court took cognizance and summoned the revisionists to face trial under Sections 419, 420, 467 and 471 I.P.C.

The revisionists then appeared before the trial court and filed objections to this effect that the civil suit with regard to above sale deed was also pending and thus criminal trial could not proceed with respect to the same dispute. The learned Magistrate allowed the objections and stayed the proceedings of criminal case vide his order dated 21.8.1987, aggrieved by which the respondent No. 2 Tulsi Ram filed Criminal Revision No. 242 of 1987, which was decided by IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Jalaun at Orai on 17.6.1988 and the revision was allowed as well as the order dated 21.8.1987 passed by the trial court was set aside and the trial court was directed to proceed with the case for trial against the revisionists. The revisionists then preferred this criminal revision against the judgment and order dated 17.6.1988 passed by the revisional court.

I have heard Shri Rajesh Dutt Pandey holding brief of Shri U.K. Saxena, learned Counsel for the revisionists and learned A.G.A. for respondent No. 1 on this revision and perused the record. None has appeared on behalf of respondent No. 2 to oppose this revision.

The learned Counsel for the revisionists has contended that the learned revisional court committed manifest error of law in setting aside the judgment and order dated 21.8.1987 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalaun at Orai in Case No. 201 of 1986 Tulsi Ram v. Nanhe and Ors. because criminal proceedings with respect to the same dispute could not proceed as civil suit was pending. It is further contended that the common questions are involved in civil suit as well as in complaint case as to whether the sale deed in question is forged or not. The respondent No. 2 has also filed a civil suit for cancellation of above sale deed and thus he cannot prosecute the criminal case with regard to alleged forgery of same sale deed simultaneously.

It is settled law that civil suit as well as criminal case are independent proceedings and both the cases can proceed simultaneously. The learned revisional court has relied on number of decisions rendered by this Court as well as the Hon''ble Apex court in this regard, wherein it has been held that both the proceedings are independent in nature and in case civil suit is filed for cancellation of sale deed, criminal complaint with regard to same sale deed cannot be said to be barred by any provision of law. The criminal court has exclusive jurisdiction to decide criminal matters. Simply because there is an independent civil liability, the criminal case cannot be said to be barred. The respondent No. 2 Tulsi Ram can file a suit for cancellation of sale deed in civil court and at the same time he can also prosecute the same person in a criminal court under the offences committed by him.

Consequently the revisional court has not committed any illegality or irregularity in allowing the revision and setting aside the order passed by the learned Magistrate in criminal case No. 201 of 1986. The impugned judgment and order do not suffer from any infirmity. Consequently, this revision deserves to be dismissed.

In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, this revision is dismissed. The record of the trial court is directed to be sent back forthwith and the trial court is directed to proceed with criminal complaint for expeditious disposal.