HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.6906 OF 2008 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed by the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 3 (For short, ‘A-1 to A-3’) under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking to quash proceedings in Crime No.141 of 2008, dated 05-10-2008, on the file of II Town Police Station, Nandyala, Kurnool District, registered for offences punishable under Sections 468 and 471 I.P.C. 2. Whereas the Petitioners are A-1 to A-3, the Respondent No.2 is the Complainant in the F.I.R. For the sake of convenience, I refer the parties as arrayed in the F.I.R. 3. Heard the learned counsel for A-1 to A-3 and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the Respondents-State. 4. Briefly the prosecution version which is to be considered here is as follows : The Complainant and A-1 are sisters and they have another sister namely Satya Devi and all of them are the daughters of one Punna Surya Narayana @ Surya Bhagavan. The said P. Surya Narayana @ Surya Bhagavan, during his lifetime, allotted one portion each to his daughters out of his houses bearing Nos.28/1384 and 29/215-C2. While so, the Complainant during the lifetime of her father, sold her portion of house bearing No.28/1384 to A-1 and as the property stood in the name of her father, he executed a gift deed in favour of A-1 in respect of that property. It is also claimed that A-1 and A-2 got executed an agreement of sale to that effect in favour of A-1 on 17-07-2008 and got it attested by their own person keeping a gap of about three lines in between the last sentence and the signature of the Complainant in the agreement. Further it is clamed that their father died and all the sisters exulted a partition list dated 30-08-2008 to the effect that a portion in the house bearing No.28/1384 fell to the share of the Complainant, which was already sold to A-1, for which their father also executed a gift deed in favour of A-1 and also to the effect that the house bearing No.29/215-C2 fell to the share of the Complainant whereas in the agreement dated 17-07-2008 no transaction relating to that portion of the house bearing No.29/215/C-2 is shown to have occurred in between the Complainant and A-1. Later, the Complainant agreed to sell her portion of the house bearing H. No.29/215/C-2 to one Shaik Murthuja Vali, Son of Shaik Nazeer Ahmed of Nandyal for Rs.4,35,000/- and also received Rs.2,00,000/- towards advance and executed accordingly agreement of sale dated 15-09-2008. Further, A-1 and A-2 coming to know about the agreement of sale, dated 15-09-2008, between the Complainant and Shaik Murthuja Vali, contacted A-3 who was Document Writer in the Sub-Registrar’s Office at Nandyal and taking his assistance got incorporated the following terms of selling the portion of the house of Complainant bearing H. No.29/215/C-2 to A-1 in the earlier agreement of sale dated 17-07-2008 in between the last sentence of its body and the signature of the Complainant. “And the first portion of house from northern side which fell to my share in H. No.29/215/C-2 in Nandyala village is sold to you on this day and received an amount of Rs.10,000/- as advance and whenever you demand, the same can be executed.” Further, subsequent to the said incorporation, A-1 and A-2 approached the complainant on the morning on 19-09-2008 and provided a Xerox copy of the agreement of sale dated 17-07-2008 and demanded her to execute sale deed in respect of her portion of house bearing No.29/215/C-2. After perusing the agreement of sale dated 17-07-2008, the Complainant questioned about the highhanded act of incorporation of the new sentence and then A-1 and A-2 threatened that they would file a suit for specific performance of the agreement of sale in respect of the portion of the house bearing H. No.29/215/C-2 against the Complainant and thus A-1 and A-2 including A-3 cheated the Complainant 5. It is the contention of learned counsel for A-1 to A-3 that in respect of the agreement of sale dated 17-07-2008 they filed O.S. No.245 of 2008 on the file of the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Nandyal, Kurnool District, against the Complainant for specific performance of the agreement of sale and suppressing the same fact, the Complainant got filed the Complaint incorporating false pleas and the matter is purely civil in nature and therefore the Complaint is not tenable and accordingly the proceedings against them are liable to be quashed. 6. The point for consideration is whether sufficient grounds are there in order to quash the proceedings against A-1 to A-3? 7. I have gone through the record. There are clear allegations of fabricating a false document taking advantage of the gap available in the agreement of sale dated 17-07-2008 supported by record. Prima- facie, there can be both Civil and Criminal liability against a person in respect of an issue. In other words, creation of a fraudulent document by a person involves both criminal liability and civil liability as the case may be. What is required is, in both the matters the question of genuineness of the document is to be established exhaustively and independently taking all necessary measures. The pendency of the civil suit does not bar the criminal Court to go into the question of genuineness of the document as the Criminal Court is also burdened with establishing that factor comprehensively. The Court should take active part in adducing necessary evidence to prove each and every fact in issue before them for proper administration of justice to the litigant public who seeks for necessary relief. The pendnecy of the civil suit between the parties does not mean that there is no criminal liability against them. In KISHAN SINGH v. GURPAL SINGH AND OTHERS[1], the Supreme Court held : “Thus in view of the above, the law on the issue stands crystallized to the effect that the findings of fact recorded by the Civil Court do not have any bearing so far as the criminal case is concerned and vice-versa. Standard of proof is different in civil and criminal cases. In civil cases it is preponderance of probabilities while in criminal case it is proof beyond reasonable doubt. There is neither any statutory nor any legal principle that findings recorded by the court either in civil or criminal proceedings shall be binding between the same parties while dealing with the same subject matter and both the cases have to be decided on the basis of the evidence adduced therein. However, there may be cases where the provisions of sections 41 to 43 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, dealing with the relevance of previous Judgments in subsequent cases may be taken into consideration.” 8. This decision is well applicable here. Hence, the Criminal Petition is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, with the above observations, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. __________________________ G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J Dated: 30-09-2011. Dsh. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY 151 CRIMINAL PETITION No.6906 OF 2008 September, 30, 2011 DSH [1] AIR 2010 SC 3624