Civil and criminal proceedings can proceed simultaneously if the allegations disclose criminal ingredients, such as forgery; the mere pendency of a civil suit does not bar criminal prosecution.

______________________________________________________________________

ORDER

Present petition under Section 528 of BNSS for quashing of FIR registered at Crime No.652 of 2024 Police Station Kotwali District Shivpuri for offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 34 of IPC.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the disputed property is situated at Survey No. 80 min 4, and its area is 6,000 sq. ft. The admitted position is that the petitioner is the purchaser, petitioners No. 2 and 3 are witnesses, and respondent No. 2 is the owner of the property. The transaction that resulted in the registration of the FIR began on 20.01.2023, when the petitioner, upon the respondent's proposal, intended to purchase the property. The transaction continued over time, and the payment made, totaling Rs.85,00,000/-, was credited to the account of respondent No. 2. Two documents were executed in this regard: one in the shape of a receipt and the second in the shape of an agreement. The total consideration was fixed at Rs. 2,250 per sq.ft..

3. Subsequently, with the lapse of time, malice developed in the mind of the private respondent, and despite the execution of the agreement, the respondent did not fulfill the promise contained in the agreement and ultimately refused to honor it. Since an attempt was made to commit fraud, in such circumstances, an FIR was lodged by the petitioner at Crime No. 884 of 2023 for the offense under Sections 420, 406, and 34 of the IPC registered at P.S. Kotwali, District Shivpuri (M.P.). After this FIR, the trial proceeded, and to the petitioner's surprise, the respondent again attempted to alienate the property to the third party. For that purpose, two sale deeds were executed, which again resulted in the petitioner preferring Civil Suit No. 204-A/2024 before the competent Civil Court, along with an application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2. After notice, the respondent marked his presence, and after hearing the rival parties, the competent Civil Court, vide order dated 27.05.2024 (Annexure P/6), granted interim relief in favor of the petitioner.

4. After the order of injunction was passed, the respondent no.2 defeating the provisions of law, the impugned FIR was registered by respondent against the petitioners with the allegation that the agreement which is made basis for entire consideration is neither notarized nor genuine. The complainant has come out with the pleading that the agreement which has been relied by the petitioners is prepared forged for the purpose of causing loss to the private respondent. To the very surprise, the police by non-application of mind registered FIR against the petitioners while they have completely failed to appreciate the fact that the matter is sub-judice before learned Civil court and so called agreement which has been disputed by this private respondent, its validity and genuineness is already sub-judice before the learned civil court thus the police cannot usurp the jurisdiction of learned Civil Court by registering FIR. Hence this petition.

5. Counsel for the petitioners submits that the basic issue involved in the present matter is whether an FIR can be registered in relation to a pending issue that is the subject matter of civil litigation. The undisputed fact on record is that a civil suit was filed in relation to the same property based on the same agreement. Thus, the validity has to be decided by the Civil Court, i