Civil and criminal proceedings can coexist; findings in civil cases are not binding on criminal courts, allowing for simultaneous proceedings based on different standards of proof.

ORDER

This application, under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, has been filed seeking quashment of order dated 28-10-2023 passed by JMFC Gwalior in Complaint Case Number un-registered/2023 as well as FIR in Crime Number 730/2023 registered at Police Station Gwalior on 29-10-2023 for offences under sections 420, 467, 468, 469, 470 and 471 read with 34 of IPC.

2. It is submitted by counsel for applicant that respondent number 4 filed an application under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C stating that the house, which was in the ownership and possession of his late father Devi Singh, is situated at Kotwala Mohalla, Gwalior. It was alleged that on 04-11-2008, applicant no.1 prepared a forged Will by putting forged signatures of Devi Singh and applicant numbers 2 and 3 stood as witnesses to the said forged will, knowing fully well that Devi Singh has already expired. Thereafter, on the basis of the said Will, applicant got his name mutated in the records of the Municipal Corporation. Applicants 2 and 3 had also submitted their false affidavits in the mutation proceedings. It was also alleged that respondent No.4 got the Will examined by a handwriting expert, and the Will contains forged signatures of testator Devi Singh. It is submitted that the concerned magistrate, by order dated 28-10-2023, passed an order under Section 156(3) of CrPC and on the basis of the said order, Police has registered Crime Number 730/2023 at Police Station Gwalior for offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 469, 470, 471, and Section 34 of IPC.

3. Challenging the FIR lodged in compliance of the order passed under Section 156(3) of CrPC, it is submitted by counsel for the applicant that the Magistrate, while passing an order under Section 156(3) of CrPC, should not have directed the Police to register an FIR. Respondent No.4 has also instituted a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction, which is pending. It is submitted that since the Will in question is the subject matter of the civil suit, therefore, registration of offence is unwarranted. However, it was fairly conceded that the trial court, by order dated 05-09-2023, passed in RCSA No. 349A/2023, has restrained the parties from alienating the property during the pendency of the suit. It is further submitted that although the alleged Will was prepared on 04-11-2008, but the complaint was filed in the year 2023. Furthermore, once the civil suit is pending, then continuation of criminal proceedings is unwarranted. The complaint has been lodged out of malafides. It is further submitted that even otherwise, the entire dispute is purely civil in nature, and therefore, it should not have been allowed to take the colour of a criminal case.

4. Per Contra, the application is vehemently opposed by counsel for the State as well as counsel for respondent number 4.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

6. In the present case, respondent No. 4 filed an application under Section 156(3) of CrPC along with a report of a handwriting expert to show that the Will relied upon by the applicant for getting his name mutated in the records of Municipal Corporation contains forged signatures of his father. Preparing a forged document necessarily involves criminal ingredient, which is punishable under Sections 467, 468, 469, and 471 of IPC. There may be certain cases where allegations may contain civil as well as criminal ingredients, and where the allegations are not primarily of civil nature, then the civil as well as criminal proceedings can go on simultaneously. The Supreme Court, in the case of P. Swaroopa Rani vs. M. Hari Narayana Alias Hari Babu reported in (2008) 5 SCC 765 has held as under:-

“11. It is, however, well settled that in a given case, civil proceedings and criminal proceedings can proceed simultaneously. Whether civil proceedings or criminal proceedings shall be stayed depends upon the fact and circumstances of each case. (See M.S. Sheriff v. State of Madras [AIR 1954 SC 397] , Iqbal Singh Marwah v. Meenakshi Marwah