Suba Singh and ors. vs State of Haryana and anr.

G. S. Chahal, J.

Suba Singh and others, by means of this petition under Section 482 Cr. P C., seek quashing of FIR 337 dated November 17, 1990 for

offences under Sections 420, 465, 471 and 506 Indian Penal Code.

The impugned FIR was registered on the statement of Partap Singh son of Hukmi. The facts on the basis of which the case was registered may

be briefly enumerated :

Hukmi, father of the complainant, was a cosharer in the joint Khewat along with Banwari, Jodha Ram and others. Hukmi died on September

29, 1967. Banwari and others after entering into a conspiracy, prepared a false document allegedly executed by Hukmi and Sube Singh showing

their consent to the partition of the land. Mutation No. 3084 dated Jan. 17, 1988 was got sanctioned on the basis of that document. Using these

forged documents, Jodha Ram and his sons in conspiracy with Sumer son of Sultan executed a saledeed dated Feb. 14, 1989 and the land on

which Partap Singh was in possession was sold by that deed. This land is situate on the road side and is, thus, more valuable. Effort was then made

to dispossess Partap and Premraj of the land in which they were in cultivating possession. When Partap Singh complained to Banwari and Suba

Singh about the deception played by them, they threatened to kill him.

On September 8. 1989, civil suit No. 315/89 had been instituted by Partap Singh wherein the validity of the document allegedly executed by

Hukmi as well as sale had been challenged.

5 The petitioners challenged the FIR on the basis that a civil suit had already been instituted and the findings of that suit shall be binding and as such

the criminal prosecution is in the form of abuse of the process of the Court.

The proposition that the findings of the civil suit shall be binding on the criminal Court is well settled and cannot be disputed. Since both the

processes of civil and criminal Courts have been put into motion, almost simultaneously and as the scope of both the litigation is different, the mere

pendency of the suit will not be sufficient ground for quashing the complaint. I am also of the view that stay of the criminal proceedings will not be

justified for the very reason that the decision in civil Court may take a long time and the prosecution may be deprived of some of the evidence by

lapse of time justice can be done between the parties by giving a direction that the criminal challan and the civil suit shall be decided either

simultaneously or the final order in the challan shall be passed subsequent to the decision of the civil suit No. 315/89. 1 order accordingly. Parties

are directed through their counsel to appear before the trial court on October 4, 1993. With those, directions, this petition stands disposed of