Simultaneous civil and criminal proceedings for the same allegations are impermissible, and previous acquittal and pending civil suit for the same amount warrant quashing of the criminal proceeding.

JUDGMENT :

SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.

1. Heard Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Anurag Kashyap, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 and Mr. Sanjay Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the State.

2. This petition has been filed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding arising out of C.P. Case No. 607 of 2014, T.R. No. 1210 of 2017 including the order taking cognizance dated 14.07.2014, pending in the court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Giridih.

3. The complaint case was lodged by opposite party no. 2 alleging therein that the marriage of daughter (Anjali Shreya) of the complainant was solemnized with brother (Prashant Anand) of petitioner no. 1 on 13.12.2010 and at that time complainant had agreed to give sum of Rs. 2,51,000/- as per demand of the petitioners. It was further alleged that on different dates in November, 2010 before marriage the complainant has deposited the said amount in the bank account of the petitioners. It was also alleged that after one month of marriage, the petitioners behaviour with the daughter of the complainant was very cruel, then complainant had filed a case against the petitioners as Complaint Case No. 1074 of 2012 dated 24.07.2012 (T.R. No. 1041/12) and one case for maintenance vide Maintenance Case No. 139 of 2012 and the same has been compromised between the parties before the mediation center at Giridih. It was further alleged that after a compromise, both the aforesaid cases have been withdrawn. It was also alleged that thereafter the complainant has demanded the amount of Rs. 2,51,000/- from the petitioners and the notices have been sent to the petitioners for return of the said money. It was further alleged that the complainant sent a legal notice for refund the said money. As such, the accused persons have committed forgery with intent to cheat the complainant. Hence, this case has been filed by the complainant.

4. Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the learned court has taken cognizance only under Section 417/34 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners vide order dated 14.07.2014 and being aggrieved with that order, the complainant filed Criminal Revision No. 97 of 2015, which was dismissed by the revisional court vide order dated 16.01.2017. He further submits that earlier daughter of the complainant namely Anjali Shreya had filed one complaint petition being Complaint Case No. 1074 of 2012 under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against the petitioners and other family members alleging therein the same set of allegations as alleged in the present case. He also submits that the amount in question was also the subject matter in the case filed under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and in that case, the learned court has held that the complainant has miserably failed to prove its case against the accused persons beyond all reasonable doubts and acquitted the petitioners and other family members vide order dated 02.07.2013. He further submits that thereafter the compromise was entered between the parties and it was agreed in the compromise petition that both of them will not raise any type of claim on each other and both will withdraw any other court case if filed earlier. He further submits that the same complainant has again filed one money suit being Case No. 03 of 2017 for recovery of Rs. 2,51,000/- which is still pending. He also submits that if the civil suit is pending and complaint case has also been filed for the same allegation, the same should not be encouraged when it is found to be mala-fide and for the purpose of finding out as to whether the said allegations are correct or not looking into other documents, the Court can exercise its power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of All Cargo Movers (India) Private Limited vs. Dhanesh Badarmal Jain and Another, (2007) 14 SCC 776.

5. Paragraph