HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.4694 of 2​008 ORDER:- The point that arises for determination in this petition which is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C) is whether there are grounds to quash the criminal case i.e. C.C.No.57 of 2008 pending against the petitioners on the file of the Court of the Special Mobile Judicial First Class Magistrate, Machilipatnam, Krishna District. 2 . The point arises in the following circumstances. The petitioners herein are A1 to A4 in the said C.C.No.57 of 2008. It is a private complaint case and was registered or taken cognizance by the learned Magistrate for the offences punishable under Sections 463, 464, 465 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The first respondent Nagidi Venkateswara Rao herein is the complainant in the said case. It is seen that the first petitioner Yarlagadda Venkateswara Rao herein has brought a suit O.S.No.69 of 2006 on the file of the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Machilipatnam against the first respondent herein for recovery of a sum of Rs.85,000/- towards principal and interest on the foot of a promissory note dated 10.03.2003 said to have been executed by the first respondent herein in favour of the first petitioner. The principal amount mentioned in the said pronote is stated to be Rs.50,000/- and the stipulated rate of interest is stated to be 24% per annum. The said suit is pending. 3. It is the admitted case of both sides that subsequently the first respondent herein filed the aforementioned C.C.No.57 of 2008 in the Court of the above mentioned Judicial First Class Magistrate at Machilipatnam against the petitioners herein alleging that all the petitioners herein in collusion created the promissory note dated 10.03.2003 which is the subject matter of the above suit only in order to harass him. The first respondent’s version is that all the four petitioners herein forged or created the said promissory note in order to make a wrongful gain from him due to previous disputes. The Special Mobile Judicial First Class Magistrate took cognizance of the said complaint for the aforesaid offences and registered it as C.C.No.57 of 2008 and issued process against the petitioners. The petitioners filed this present petition to quash the said proceedings. 4. The petitioners have taken two pleas. The first is that the genuineness or otherwise of the promissory note dated 10.03.2003 is already in issue in the civil suit O.S.No.69 of 2006 and therefore in view of the bar contained in Section 195(1)(b)(ii) of Cr.P.C only the civil Court before which the said suit is pending should make a complaint about the offences mentioned by the first respondent in case the said Court finds that promissory note to be a forged one and consequently the private complaint filed by the first respondent alleging the very same offences in respect of that pronote is not maintainable and it should be held barred by the above provision. The second plea of the petitioners is that the first respondent herein mischievously filed the above complaint or criminal case only to avoid his liability under the pronote and that all the allegations made against them that they forged the said pronote are false. The version of the petitioners is that the above two pleas should be accepted and the proceedings in the criminal case against them should be quashed. 5. Notice of this criminal petition was given to the first respondent and also the second respondent i.e. the State represented by the Public Prosecutor at the stage of admission but the notice on the first respondent is not served. In the circumstances of this case and having regard to the pleas taken by the petitioners and the power of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C it is not necessary to serve any notice on the first respondent and after hearing the Additional Public Prosecutor the matter has been taken up for disposal. 6. Both the pleas taken by the petitioners and the circumstances under which the point arises have already been set out supra. The first plea taken by the petitioners which is based upon the bar contained in Section 195(1)(b)(ii) of Cr.P.C may apparently sound forceful inasmuch as Section 195(1)(b)(ii) of Cr.P.C lays down that any offence described in Section 463 IPC (forgery) or punishable under Sections 471 (using as genuine a forged document), 475 and 476 of IPC can be taken cognizance of in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in any Court only on the complaint of the said Court. 7. It should however be noted that in IQBAL SINGH MARWAH vs. MEENAKSHI MARWAH[1] our Apex Court has authoritatively laid down that the bar contained in Section 195(1)(b)(ii) of Cr.P.C applies only when the document is tampered with when it is in the custody of the Court but not otherwise. That was a case where when probate proceedings were pending in the probate Court a criminal prosecution was simultaneously launched by the parties who were opposing the Will in question. The parties who propounded the Will challenged the validity of the said criminal proceedings based on the bar under Section 195(1)(b)(ii) of Cr.P.C. Rejecting the contention of the said parties, it was held by the Apex Court that the bar contained in Section 195(1)(b)(ii) applies only when the document is tampered with when it is in the custody of the Court and not to a case where the document was alleged to have been forged before it was filed in the Court. Holding so, the Apex Court held that both civil proceedings and criminal proceedings can go on simultaneously. In view of this decision of the Supreme Court it follows that this first plea or objection of the petitioners cannot be upheld. In the said case the possibility of the conflict of opinions between the civil Court and the criminal Court dealing with the same matter was also considered but it was held that the mere possibility of a conflict cannot be a ground to stall the criminal proceedings as both civil Court and criminal Court have to decide the matter on the evidence let in before them and as the decision of a criminal Court is not binding on the civil Court and vice versa. 8. Then coming to the second plea of the petitioners, it may be noted that a perusal of the allegations made in the complaint in the calendar case in question would show that they prima facie disclose offences relating to cheating and forgery with regard to the promissory note in question. Of-course no opinion can be pronounced about the same in these proceedings and it is a matter to be decided by the criminal Court where the said case is pending. The version of the petitioners that the first respondent filed the said criminal case as a counter blast to the suit brought by the first petitioner against him may be a defence for the petitioners and whether that defence can be upheld or not is again a question to be decided on evidence and considering all the matters in the criminal case. It is now well settled that this Court can interfere under Section 482 of Cr.P.C and quash the proceedings either in a criminal case or the FIR only when the allegations made in the criminal case or the FIR even if wholly believed to be true do not disclose any offence. That is not the case here. A perusal of the allegations made in the complaint in the criminal case would show that they do disclose offences relating to cheating and forgery. Hence this Court cannot quash the said proceedings. 9. Accordingly both the pleas taken by the petitioners are rejected and this criminal petition is dismissed. Any interim order granted in this criminal petition shall stand vacated and the criminal Court can go ahead with the proceedings in the said calendar case. ______________________ N. RAVI SHANKAR, J 22nd March 2011 CVRK [1] 2005 (1) ALD (Crl.) 717 (SC) = AIR 2005 SC 2119