Civil and criminal proceedings operate independently; the findings of civil courts are not binding on criminal courts, stressing the differing standards of proof in each.

ORDER :

1. This application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed against the order dated 20/11/2013 passed by 4^th Additional Sessions Judge, Guna, District Guna in Criminal Revision No. 77/2023 by which the Revisional Court has reversed the order dated 1/5/2023 passed by JMFC, Aron, district Guna in UNCR/65/2022 and has directed the trial Court to take cognizance for offence under Sections 120 -B, 471 and 417 of IPC .

2. Facts necessary for disposal of present application in short are that one Maniram, husband of applicant No. 1 and father of applicants No. 2 to 5 was the owner of the land in dispute. A sale deed was executed in favour of respondents. The applicants filed a suit for declaration of sale deed as null and void alleging that Maniram had expired on 2/4/1987; whereas, the sale deed was executed on 20/12/1988. Therefore, the primary bone of contention of applicants before the Civil Court was that since Maniram had already expired on 2/4/1987, therefore, he could not have executed a sale deed on 20/12/1988. It was the case of the respondents that Maniram had executed a sale deed on 20/12/1988 and he expired on 16/11/1989. A death certificate issued on 3/9/2012 was also filed before the Civil Court. Civil Court dismissed the suit thereby raising a suspicion about the death certificate relied upon by the applicants. The Civil Appeal has also been dismissed. Second appeal is pending but it has not been admitted so far.

3. In the meanwhile, the respondents filed a criminal complaint against the applicants alleging that the applicants had filed a forged death certificate dated 3/9/2012 to project that Maniram had expired on 2/4/1987. The trial Magistrate after recording preliminary statement of the witnesses as well as complainant dismissed the complaint under Section 203 of Cr.P.C. on the ground that although civil suit has been dismissed but no finding was recorded by the civil Court to the effect that death certificate dated 3/9/2012 filed by the applicants before the Civil Court was a forged document and the respondent has not examined the competent authority to show that the death certificate was a forged document.

4. Being aggrieved by the said order, the respondent preferred a revision and the revisional Court by impugned order dated 20/11/2023 has set aside the order passed by the trial Court and gave a finding that prima facie there is sufficient material to hold that a forged death certificate was filed by the applicants before the trial Court, therefore, the trial Magistrate was directed to take cognizance for offence under Sections 120 -B, 471 and 417 of IPC .

5. Challenging the order passed by the revisional Court, it is submitted by counsel for applicants that in exercise of powers under Section 398 of Cr.P.C., the revisional Court can at the most remand the matter to the trial Magistrate to conduct further enquiry but the revisional Court cannot give a specific finding with regard to the guilt of the accused persons and therefore, the findings with regard to the nature of the death certificate as well as a specific direction to the trial Magistrate to take cognizance for offence under Section 120 -B, 471 and 417 of IPC is beyond the competence/jurisdiction of the revisioanl Court.

6. To buttress his contentions, counsel for the applicants has also relied upon the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Rajaram Gupta and Ors. Vs. Dharamchand and Ors. , 1983 MPLJ 56 , Rewaram and Anr. Vs. State of M.P. and Anr. , 2004 (4) MPLJ 351 and Bahadur Singh Vs. Ramcharan