The main legal point established in the judgment is that criminal proceedings can continue simultaneously with civil proceedings, and the standard of proof required in civil and criminal cases is different.

Nirmal Singh, J.

1. This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the FIR No. 71 dated 16.6.1999 registered at P.S. Kotwali Amritsar for offence under Sections 420/415/417/419/423/120-B IPC.

2. When this petition came up, for hearing on 2.6.2000, learned counsel for the petitioners made a statement that he does not press this application for quashing but restricts his prayer only for the stay of criminal proceedings till the disposal of the civil proceedings with reference to the same subject matter.

3. Mr. Malkeet Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that from the perusal of the FIR, it is clear that the case has been registered with malafide intention. He pointed out that the dispute between the parties is of civil nature. He further submitted that the complainant has already filed a suit for declaration to the effect that he was owner in possession of property bearing old Khasra No. 621-622/2, new No. 489-91/11-4 situated at Partap Nagar, Amritsar and in that suit, complainant has also prayed for relief of permanent injunction restraining the petitioners from alienating, mortgaging or disposing of the above-said property in any manner. He contended that the FIR has been registered only to harass the petitioners as the matter is already subjudice in the civil court. He submitted that when the dispute is of a civil nature and has been given the cloak of a criminal offence, then the proceedings in the FIR is to be stayed. In support of his submissions, he placed reliance on 2001(1) RCR 701, Ram Sumer Puri Mahant v. State of U.P. & Ors. 1985(1) RCR 278, Ashok Kumar v. State of Punjab 1999(2) RCR (Crl.) 245 and Tukaram Annaba Chavan v. Machindra Yeshwant Patil, 2001(1) RCR(Criminal) 701.

4. On the other hand, Mr. T.N. Gupta, Advocate for the respondent raised a preliminary objection that the petition is not maintainable as the petitioner has not come to the court with clean hands. he submitted that petitioners have suppressed material facts from the court. He further submitted that the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. has been presented before the Illaqa Magistrate and the petitioners have appeared before the trial Court and case was fixed for consideration of charge on 17.5.2000 whereas the present petition has been filed on 29.5.2000 and petitioners have not disclosed the entire facts in this petition. He also submitted that respondent has filed a suit for declaration prior to the filing of this petition. He submitted that when the respondent has committed an offence, then there is no bar that criminal proceedings cannot continue. In support of his submissions, he placed reliance on M.S. Sherrif and Anr. v. State of Madras and Ors., AIR 1954 SC 397, M. Krishnan v. Vijay Singh and Anr., 2001(4) RCR 406, Kamladevi Agarwal v. State of West Bengal, 2001(4) RCR 522.

5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, I am of the considered opinion that there is no merit in this petition.

6. The petition is to be dismissed on the score that the petitioners have not come to the court with clean hands and have tried to suppress the material facts from the Court. A party which is not coming to the court with clean hands is not entitled to be heard on merits.

7. In the instant case, report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was presented before the Illaqa Magistrate on 10.12.1999 and petitioners have appeared before the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate on 17.5.2000 and case was adjourned to 12.6.2000 for framing the charge, whereas these facts have not been disclosed by the petitioners, when they filed this petition on 29.5.2000 under section 482 Cr.P.C. After the presentation of the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. petitioners were bound to disclose all these facts and they have alternative remedy that they can move an application under Section 245 Cr.P.C. for dropping the proceedings or can request to the trial Court for staying the proceedings, but instead of availing that remedies, pet