Hon’ble K.N. Sinha, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.G.A. Perused the orders dated 22.3.2006 passed by the Magistrate and the Revisional order dated 29.4.2006.

2. From the orders, it transpires that an application under Section 156 (3), Cr.P.C. was moved by the petitioner, which was dismissed by order dated 22.3.2006. The revision against the said order was also dismissed on 29.4.2006. The dismissal was mainly made on the ground that case of forged will was pending in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division) Mirzapur. If that Court found the will to be forged, it can take action. The similar view was taken by the Revisional Court.

3. In cases in which the litigant seeks remedy from the Court of Magistrate under Section 156 (3), Cr.P.C, a general view is taken that civil case is pending and no action should be taken where as this view is absolutely incorrect and is not applicable in all the cases. In Lalmuni Devi v. State of Bihar and others, 2001 (1) JIC 717 (SC) and in M. Krishnan v. Vijay Singh and another, 2001 (II) U.P. Cri. R 571, Hon’ble the Supreme Court has held that such cases could not be thrown away out rightly. It has been held in th