Pendency of a civil suit between the same parties is not a ground for quashing a criminal proceeding.

( 1 ) IN the present application the petitioner has prayed for quashing of a proceeding being complaint Case No. 64 of 2001 under Sections 465/468/471/34 of the Indian Penal Code pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 5th Court, Sealdah.

( 2 ) THE main ground on which such prayer for quashing is made is that a civil litigation over the same property is going on between the same parties. But the complainant filed a petition of complaint on 15/2/2001 before the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sealdah alleging that the present petitioner in connivance with the accused Nos. 2 and 3 in the petition of complaint prepared false and forged document being title deed dated 28/6/1999 in order to transfer the right, title and interest of a portion of the property in question. It is the contention of the learned Advocate of the petitioner that the allegations made in the petition of complaint do not disclose any offence under the aforesaid sections. Since civil litigations are pending in appropriate Court of law, the present criminal proceeding should not be allowed to continue and the same is liable to be quashed.

( 3 ) IN support of his contention the learned Advocate of the petitioner relies upon a judgment of the Honble Apex Court reported in Alpic Finance Ltd. v. P. Sadasivan and another. From a reading of the said judgment it appears that in the said case the main offence alleged by the appellant was that the respondents committed the offence under Section 420 I. P. C. and the case of the appellant was that the respondents have cheated the complainant and thereby dishonestly induced him to deliver the property. There was no allegation that the respondent made any wilful misrepresentation. In the complaint there was no allegation that there was fraud or dishonest inducement on the part of the respondents and the respondents parted with any property. In such circumstances the Honble Supreme Court was of the view that the High Court was justified in quashing the proceeding under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code.

( 4 ) I have gone through the said judgment but in my considered view, the said judgment has got no manner of application in the present case. The facts and circumstances of the said case is quite different from the present one. In the present case a specific allegation has been made in the petition of complaint that in furtherance of common intention the accused persons prepared a false and forged document being a title deed showing the transfer of right, title and ownership of the premises in question.

( 5 ) THE next judgment relied upon by the learned Advocate of the petitioner is reported in AIR 1976 SC 1947. In the said judgment it was held by the Honble Apex Court that at the stage of issuing process the Magistrate is mainly concerned with the allegations made in the complaint or the evidence led in support of the same and he is only to be prima facie satisfied whether there are sufficient grounds for proceeding against the accused. It is not the province of the Magistrate to enter into a detailed discussion of the merits and demerits of the case nor can the High Court go into this matter in its revisional jurisdiction which is a very limited one. In the said judgment the Honble Supreme Court also has laid down the circumstances in which an order of the Magistrate issuing process, against the accused can be quashed or set aside. I have gone through the said judgment, but in my considered view, the present case does not come within the purview of the said circumstances in which an initial order of taking cognizance can be quashed.

( 6 ) MR. Bagchi, learned Advocate appearing for opposite party submits that a specific case has been made out in the petition of complaint which is sufficient for the purpose of proceeding further in the present case. It is the further contention of Mr. Bagchi, learned Advocate that pendency of a Civil Suit cannot stand in the way of ini