IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.36913 of 2006 KALAWATI DEVI & ORS Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 8 11.8.2008 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as also the learned counsel for O.P. No. 2 and the learned A.P.P. for the State. The grievance of the petitioners is directed against the order dated 18.9.2004 passed by Sri Ramjeet Kumar, Learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ara, in Complaint Case No. 770 (C) of 2004, whereby he has taken cognizance for offences under sections 417, 465, 468 and 120B I.P.C. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the case is of civil nature since it involves the question of registered gift deed executed by the father in favour of the daughter which was subsequently inquired into on objection being raised by the wife and from the inquiry it transpired that the registered deed had indeed been executed by the executant Rajeshwari Singh. This was followed by a complaint filed by the executant of the deed of gift which was dismissed under section 203 Cr.P.C. This was followed by another complaint by the present complainant on the same facts and figures. In this connection reference was made to the case of Anil Agrawal Vs. State of Bihar reported in 2007(1) BBCJ 431, - 2 - wherein it was held that it is curious that now a days even in matter which clearly falls within purview of civil dispute people rush to chose the forum of criminal courts for settlement of such disputes and the courts below without applying their judicial minds and examining the facts disclosed in the complaint petition take cognizance and proceed to prosecute the accused. The observation aforesaid was based on the judgments of the Apex Court in Chandrapal Singh Vs. Maharaj Singh reported in (1982) 1 SCC 466 as also M.L. Dalmia Vs. State of Bihar reported in 2006(3) PLJR 331 and G.Sagar Suri & anr. Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2000(2)SCC 636, wherein it was held that it is to be seen if a matter which is essentially of a civil nature has been given a cloak of criminal offence and that criminal proceedings are not a shortcut of other remedies available in law. Apparently from the submissions that have been advanced before me by the learned counsel for the petitioners it appears that the matter involves looking into facts and figures so as to come to a conclusion that the matter is civil in nature and does not involve any criminal liability . In the aforesaid circumstances the petitioners are directed to raise these issues at the time of framing of charge - 3 - and the court below while framing charge will take into considerastion the fact that as yet there has been no declaration to the effect that the registered deed in question was a fraudulent one and unless such declaration is made by a Court of competent jurisdiction the deed in question remains questionable and no liability can be placed on any body till such declaration is made. As stated above the petitioners will raise all the issues at the time of framing of charge and the court below in the light of observations made above will take into account the observation and pass orders in accordance with law . With the aforesaid observation this application is disposed of. Spd/- (Abhijit Sinha, J.)