1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.680 OF 2009 Vilas Baburao Wagh & Ors. : Petitioners (Orig.Accused Opponent nos.2,3 & 7 to 16) V/s. Jagdish Balwant Kedar & Anr. : Respondents ... Mr.Jagdish G. Aradwad (Reddy) for the petitioners. Mr.M.S.Mohite with Mr.Sagar Kasar for respondent no.1. Mrs.R.V.Newton, Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State. ... CORAM : S.A. BOBDE, J. DATE : AUGUST 24, 2009. P.C.: 1. The petitioner has challenged the order of the III Addl. Sessions Judge, Nashik, in Criminal Revision Application No.328 of 2002 holding that the criminal complaint filed by the respondent no.1 discloses a prima facie case for issuance of process, notwithstanding the pendency of a civil suit between the parties. 2. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Sessions Court ought not to have committed the issue of process since 2 there is a civil suit filed between the parties on the same issue and, therefore, the criminal proceedings ought to have been held in abeyance. It is, therefore, necessary to examine the nature of the two proceedings. 3. The dispute between the parties apparently arises out of land sold by one Shamrao Balwant Kedar acting as Power of Attorney on behalf of the original owners who are accused. This land was sold to the complainant Jagdish Balwant Kedar along with others under a registered sale deed dated 28.6.1991 registered on 11.7.1991. From the said piece of land, Shamrao had apparently sold another piece of land to one Ifco Employees Co-operative Housing Society which is not in dispute. 4. The petitioners who are the owners of the land have filed a suit alleging that the land was purchased by Jagdish Balwant Kedar and others without their consent and, therefore, the sale deed registered in favour of the complainant be declared as bogus, false and illegal. 5. The respondent no.1 has initiated the present criminal case against the petitioners alleging that the accused who include the original owners had fraudulently used the Power of Attorney of a dead person in respect of sale deed of different part of the property on 24.12.2001. According to the respondent no.1, the Power of Attorney of the deceased 3 owner Madhu Jadhav used to fraudulently obtain permission from U.L.C. authorities and get the plans sanctioned from the Nasik Municipal Council. Further, the respondent no.1 herein, who is the complainant, has alleged that the accused had forged 7/12 extracts by illegally erasing pencil entries made by Government officers and used these forged documents for fraudulently obtaining permission from various authorities. 6. After the complaint was filed, the learned Magistrate had refused to take cognizance of the complaint in view of the pendency of the civil suit. The respondent-complainant, therefore, approached the Sessions Court who has, by the impugned order, directed that the two proceedings are independent and, therefore, the process should be issued. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that it is a normal rule of law that criminal proceedings should not be permitted to continue where civil proceedings in respect of the same subject-matter are pending. Having considered the matter, in my view, this rule would have no application in a case such as the present one where the criminal proceedings which are in question in this Writ Petition are independent and separate from the civil proceedings. As is apparent from the narration above, the two proceedings cannot be said to be inter-dependant. The learned Sessions Judge has rightly permitted the process to be issued. 4 8. In the result, there is no merit in the petition which is hereby dismissed. S.A. BOBDE, J.