IN THE HIGH COUR T OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.38 of 2007 1. Balkeshwari Devi wife of late Kameshwar Singh resident of village Aaganur, Police Station Kaler, District Arwal. 2. Gauri Shankar Singh@Gauri Shankar Prasad son of Deo Sharan Singh resident of village-Bairwana, Police Station Karpi, District- Arwal. Versus 1. State of Bihar. 2. Gopalan Prasad son of late Ramdas Singh. Resident of village Aaganur, Police Station kaler District Arwal. ----------- 8 20.07.2011 The accused petitioners have preferred this revision application against the order dated 30.11.2006 passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Jehanahad in Cr. Revision No. 103 of 2005 by which the order dated 23.09.2005 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class in Complaint Case No. 223 of 2005, Tr. No. 1466 of 2005 has been set aside. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Ms. Indu Bala Pandey learned A.P. P for the State. The complainant Opp. Party No. 2, Gopalan Prasad filed Complaint Case No. 223 of 2005 in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate alleging therein that the accused Balkeshwari Devi (petitioner No. 1) receiving Rs. 50,000/- agreed to sell 2 kathas of land and two sale deeds were prepared at her instance and put her thumb impression and at her instance the witness Rajendra Prajapati also signed on the sale deeds. The accused Balkeshwari Devi also got prepared a sale deed in favour of Urmila Devi after receiving Rs. 25, 000/-. All the three sale deeds were presented in the registry office but they could not be executed at the instance of the accused-petitioner no. 2 Gaurishankar. All the three accused (Balkeshwari Devi, Kamesh Singh 2 and Gaurishankar Singh ) left the registry office without giving any information to the complainant. On the next day on 19.09.2004. The complainant and the witness Lal Prasad went to call the accused for the execution of the sale deeds but they did not turn up. Later on also the attempts were made by the complainant for getting the sale deeds executed but failed. On 12.01.2005 all the accused refused to execute the sale deed and refused to return Rs. 50, 000/- as consideration money for the execution of 2 kathas of land and also refused to return Rs. 25,000/- which was received by Balkeshwari Devi from the witness Urmila Devi. The complaint petition was filed for offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate recorded the statement of the complainant and transferred the case to the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate for enquiry and disposal of the complaint petition. The complainant examined three witnesses in support of his contention. After the enquiry, the learned Magistrate dismissed the complaint petition on the ground that the case appears to be a civil nature and there is no material for proceeding with the case vide order dated 23.09.2005. Thereafter, the complainant filed Cr. Revision No. 103 of 2005 against the aforesaid order dated 23.09.2005 passed by the learned Sri S.K.Pandey, Judicial Magistrate in Complaint Case No. 223 of 2005, Tr. No. 1466 of 2005 in the Court of Sessions Judge which has been heard by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Jehanabad. After hearing the learned counsel for both the parties the aforesaid order dated 23.09.2005 has been set aside and the learned Magistrate has been directed to pass 3 fresh order on the basis of the evidence available on the record in accordance with law. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the complaint petition is an abuse of the process of the Court. The Complainant can seek remedy in Civil Court. In fact the complainant as well aforesaid Urmila Devi has preferred application under Section 36 of the Indian Registration Act for executing the registered sale deed which has been rejected by the Registration Officer vide his order dated 26.04.2005, against that order the complaint and Urmila Devi have preferred Appeal Nos. 15 and 16 of 2006 before the District Collector- cum-District Registration Officer, Arwal which are still pending. The learned counsel for the State has submitted that the impugned order has been passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in accordance with law who has relied upon the decision in case of M/s Medchl Chemicals & Pharma Pvt. Ltd vs. M/s Biological E. Ltd. & Ors reported in 2000(2) Cr. LJ 1487. After hearing the learned counsel for both the parties and on perusal of the material on record it appears that the learned Magistrate has dismissed the complaint petition filed by Opp. Party No. 2 on the ground that the case is of civil nature. This order has been set aside by the learned 2nd Addl. Sessions Judge on the ground that the criminal proceeding cannot be denied even if there is remedy of civil nature available to the complainant . The similar matter has been considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide decision reported in 2000(2) Cr. LJ (supra) it has been held that 4 “Whether or not the allegations in the complaint are otherwise correct has to be decided on the basis of the evidence to be led at the trial in the complaint case but simply because of the fact that there is a remedy provided for breach of contract, that does not by itself clothe the Court to come to a conclusion that civil remedy is the only remedy available to the appellant herein. Both criminal law and civil law remedy can be pursued in diverse situations. As a matter of fact they are not mutually exclusive but clearly co-extensive and essentially differ in their content and consequence. The object of criminal law is to punish an offender who commits an offence against a person, property or the State for which the accused, on proof of the offence, is deprived of his liberty and in some cases even his life. This does not, however, affect civil remedies at all for suing the wrongdoer in case like arson, accidents etc. It is anathema to suppose that when a civil remedy is available, a criminal prosecution is completely barred.” Considering the facts and circumstances stated above, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order. This petition is dismissed. Prakash (Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.)