IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.49348 of 2006 (1) Manoj Kumar Singh @ Manoj Singh, (2) Satrughan Singh, both sons of Late Deep Narain Singh, village Chapra Roopnath, PS Mufassil, Dist. Muzaffarpur. (3) Shashi Bhusan Thakur, son of Harish Chandra Thakur, village Basauri, PS Cham Mehsi, Dist. Samastipur. (4) Krishna Deo Singh, son of Late Suresh Singh, (5) Amrendra Kumar, (6) Narendra Kumar, (7) Jitendra Kumar, (8) Raghwendra Kumar, all sons of Krishna Deo Singh, all of village Gangsara, PS Sarai Ranjan, Dist. Samastipur. (9) Pawan Kumar Mishra, son of Ram Bilas Mishra, village Chak Sarai, PS Ujiarpur, District Samastipur – Petitioners. Vs. 1) The State of Bihar, 2) Sunil Kumar Sharma, son of Late Rama Nand Sharma, village Chapra Roopnath, PS Musahari, Dist. Muzaffarpur – Opp. Parties. … For the petitioners : Mr. P.N.Shahi and Mr. Pankaj Kumar Singh, Advocates. For the State : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, A.P.P. For the complainant : Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha and Mr. Jai Shankar, Advocates. … 16 4.1.2011 Heard learned counsel for the parties. A complaint case was instituted for the offences under sections 465, 471, 205 and 120B of the Penal Code alleging that the petitioners 1 and 2 by impersonating the complainant had got a deed of gift Atayanama, dated 26.10.1999 executed in favour of Amrendra Kumar, Narendra Kumar, Raghwendra Kumar and Jitendra Kumar. On the basis of the aforesaid allegations complaint was filed which was sent to the police for investigation leading to registration of Samastipur Town PS Case No. 514/1999. The police submitted final form exonerating the accused persons including the petitioners. Thereafter complaint-cum-protest petition was filed which has led to the order taking cognizance on 2 12.1.2005. The petitioners have prayed for quashing of the order taking cognizance and for quashing the subsequent order refusing to discharge the petitioners. In course of arguments in this case by order dated 27.3.2009, this court directed ‘that the Subdivisional Judicial Magistrate, Sadar, Samastipur should obtain the signatures of petitioner no.1 Manoj Kumar @ Manoj Singh and opposite party no.2 Sunil Kumar Sharma by making signatures of Sunil Kumar Singh’. The allegation is that Manoj Kumar Singh has signed as Sunil Kumar Singh whereas counsel for the petitioners submits that both were to sign i.e. Sunil Kumar Sharma as well as Manoj Kumar Singh as Sunil Kumar Singh in order to make out which of the signatures tally with the signature on the deed of gift. This court had also directed that the thumb impressions of both persons should be obtained and thereafter the same should be examined by an expert. Apparently this has been done. The opposite party challenges the findings of the Forensic Science Laboratory as far as the thumb impressions are concerned. It is not disputed that a civil suit has been instituted by the informant for setting aside the deed of gift being T.S. No. 115/2001 pending before the Sub Judge I, Samastipur. It would be proper that the thumb impressions and the signatures should be examined during the course of trial of the title suit as the Civil Court has to decide the validity of the deed of gift. Any decision with respect to the validity of the deed of gift would not create a title in favour of one or the other party in a criminal proceeding. 3 The question whether there was a forged signature on the deed of gift by impersonation or any other means would in one way or the other affect the out come of the suit. In my opinion, therefore, it would be better that the title suit should be decided and thereafter the parties aggrieved may take appropriate steps in the matter. Essentially, the challenge regarding the validity of deed of gift comes within the purview of a civil court. The defence of the petitioners is that the entire case is false. In fact the petitioners have not executed any deed of gift nor was he required to execute a deed of gift to derive any advantage with respect to the title of the lands under dispute, as he would in any case inherit the lands in question in the manner as explained at paragraph 9 and onwards of the written statement filed in T.S. No. 115/2001. In view of the aforesaid fact, this court finds that it would be proper that the title suit should be decided with respect to the issues raised in the suit regarding the execution of deed of gift. A criminal case at this stage in fact is not maintainable. I accordingly quash the order, dated 12.1.2005 and the consequential orders passed in C.R. No. 354/2002 / Trial No. 964/2006 pending before the Subdivisional Judicial Magistrate, Sadar, Samastipur. This application is allowed. haque ( Sheema Ali Khan, J.)