Findings of civil courts are not binding in criminal proceedings; different standards of proof apply.

1. This petition is filed praying to call for the records pertaining to the charge sheet in C.C.No. 170 of 2012 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Alandur.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioners herein had executed a will dated 16.04.1997, in favour of M/s. Industrial Venture Capital Limited, which came to be registered as Document No.1069 of 1997 before the Sub Registrar, Neelankarai. Subsequently the petitioners herein had executed another sale deed dated 18.04.2006 which came to be registered as document no.3062 of 2006 in favour of Jeppiar Educational Trust. The purchaser in the first sale deed dated 16.04.1997 was the second respondent herein. Pursuant to the complaint given alleging that the petitioners herein had fraudulently executed the sale deed dated 18.04.2006 in favour of the Jeppiar Educational trust, the case came to be registered under S.420 r/w.34 IPC in Crime No. 77 of 2006 by the first respondent herein. Pursuant to the investigation, charge sheet was laid for the offences under S.420 r/w.34 IPC against the petitioners herein, which was taken on file in CC No.17 of 2007 on the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Poonamallee. Challenging the same, the petitioners are before this Court.

3. Heard, Mr. C. K. M. Appaji, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Mr. C. Iyyapparaj, Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the first respondent and Mr. B. Kumar, Senior Counsel, appearing for the second respondent.

4. The only ground relied on by the petitioners is that they were not aware of the sale deed and that the first sale deed came to be registered based on impersonation and forged documents. The learned counsel for the petitioners also submitted that they have filed suit in O.S.No.432/2007 (old O.S.No.275/2006) on the file of the Additional District Judge, Fast Court No.I, Chengalpattu and by judgment and decree dated 04.01.2011, the sale deed dated 16.04.1997 was decided as null and void. Relying on the findings in the said judgment of the civil court, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that since the civil court has found that the first sale deed is said to have been executed by impersonation and forgery, the same is binding on the criminal court and therefore, it will not be justified in continuing with the proceedings.

5. In support of his contention the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners relied on the judgement of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2011 (2) SCC (Cri) 721 Radheshyam Kejriwal v. State of West Bengal and another , and stated that the findings of the civil court while declaring the sale deed dated 16.04.1997 is null and void is pending on the trial court and the proceedings needs to be quashed.

6. Mr. B. Kumar, learned Senior counsel appearing for the second respondent on the other hand submitted that the judgment and decree of the trial court has already been challenged in A.S.No. 979 and 980 of 2012 before this court and the same is pending in which interim order of injunction restraining the petitioners herein in any way encumbering the suit property was also granted. According to the learned senior counsel, the judgement cited by the counsel for the petitioners may not have any relevance since the matter arises out of Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, where the Supreme Court has held that the adjudication proceedings will not be a bar for any criminal prosecution levelled and therefore, the above judgement is not applicable to the facts of the present case. According to him, in the present case the petitioners have obtained judgment and decree from the civil court with regard to the declaration of the sale