Civil and criminal remedies may coexist in cases involving allegations of forgery, and failure to act on a prior complaint does not bar subsequent complaints on the same facts.

JUDGMENT

1. This petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioners who are accused in FIR No.1220/2014, registered under Sections 420/468/471 read with 34 IPC, at Police Station Nand Nagri, Delhi, seeking quashing of the said FIR and all proceedings emanating therefrom.

2. The contention of Mr. Abhinav Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners, is that the dispute between the parties, namely, the petitioners and the complainant/respondent No.3 was fundamentally a civil dispute and as held in Paramjeet Batra Vs. State of Uttarakhand and Ors., (2013) 11 SCC 673, when a civil remedy was available, the court ought to quash the criminal proceedings to prevent abuse of process of court. It is further submitted that the FIR has been belatedly registered after a delay of seven years. Reliance in this regard has been placed on the judgement of the Gujarat High Court in Madhubhai Virjibhai Patel Vs. State of Gujarat & others, Order dated 27th September, 2019 in R/Criminal Misc. Application No.7023/2009. It is stated that a civil suit filed by the petitioners against the complainant/respondent no. 3 was already pending before the learned Additional District Judge, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the law did not permit a second complaint on the same facts and therefore, the FIR registered against the petitioners was liable to be quashed. Reliance in this regard has been placed on the judgement of the Calcutta High Court in Anwarul Islam v. State of West Bengal, 1996 SCC OnLine Cal 111.

3. Relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Lalita Kumari Vs. Govt. of U.P. & others, (2014) 2 SCC 1, it was argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that on account of the delay in filing the complaint and this being the second complaint, a preliminary inquiry had to be conducted by the police before the FIR was registered and the police had failed to conduct this preliminary inquiry, thus, vitiating the registration of the FIR.

4. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, this was only a malicious attempt to arm-twist the petitioners to succumb to the pressure of the complainant/respondent No.3 and give up their civil claims against him. The civil suit was being dragged on by the complainant/respondent No.3 and costs have also been imposed on him. It was submitted that till date, no charge-sheet has been filed and as the plea of intoxication at the time of appending signatures, after the lapse of so many years is unverifiable, the plea of the complainant/respondent No.3 that the petitioners had taken signatures on blank papers was a wishy-washy claim. Reliance has been placed on the judgements of the Supreme Court in R.K. Vijayasarathy v. Sudha Seetharam, (2019) 16 SCC 739; Mitesh Kumar J. Sha v. State of Karnataka, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 976 and Chennadi Jalapathi Reddy v. Baddam Pratapa Reddy, (2019) 14 SCC 220. It was also contended that the promotion of the petitioner No.1 was hanging in the balance and a departmental inquiry was also pending. Hence it was submitted that the pendency of this FIR was causing grave prejudice to the petitioners and, therefore, the same be quashed.

5. Mr. Abhik Kumar, learned counsel for the complainant/respondent No.3, on the other hand, relying on the judgment in Mahesh Chand Vs. B. Janardhan Reddy & others, (2003) 1 SCC 734, submitted that there w