Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J.

The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to assail the order dated 25.6.2018 passed by the revisional court below whereby a direction was given to the trial court to treat the protest petition filed by the complainant as a complaint case under Chapter XV of Cr.P.C.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the present case, the complainant Pawan Gupta deceased (now represented through LR's respondent Nos. 2/1 to 2/3) had lodged FIR No.703/2005 at Police Station Jhotwara, Jaipur for the offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B IPC. It is contended that in the year 2008, investigating agency submitted Final Report in negative form. Aggrieved against the same, the complainant filed a protest petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the court of Magistrate accepted the Final Report submitted in negative form and dismissed the protest petition relying upon the report of Forensic Science Laboratory.

4. Aggrieved against the same, the complainant filed a revision petition. The revisional court below after going through the entire controversy had set aside the order of Magistrate by directing the court below to proceed with the protest petition as Complaint under Chapter XV of Cr.P.C.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that a civil suit has also been filed by the complainant and in the said suit, an issue has been framed regarding validity of the power of attorney. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that once the civil court is seized of the matter, criminal proceedings should be kept in abeyance.

6. The argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be sustained as Constitutional Bench of Supreme Court in M.S. Sheriff vs. The State of Madras and Others, (1954) AIR SC 397, held that between the civil and criminal proceedings, precedence should be given to the criminal proceedings and same should be swift and prompt so that guilty is punished at the earliest.

7. In Iqbal Singh Marwah & Another vs. Meenakshi Marwah & Another, (2005) AIR SC 2119, another Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court held that standard of proof required in civil cases is different as they are decided on the basis of preponderance of evidence, whereas, in criminal cases entire burden lies on the prosecution and proof beyond reasonable doubt has to be led. Para 24 of the judgment Iqbal Singh Marwah (supra) reads as under:-

"24. 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 old Code, the following observations made by a Constitution Bench in M.S. Sheriff vs. State of Madras, (1954) AIR SC 397 give a complete answer to the problem posed :

"(15) 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 can be laid 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 pur