HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDA RAJULU CRL.PETITION NO.4408 OF 2007 Date: 05.12.2009 Between: …..Petitioners/A-3,4 & 6. And: …..Respondent. HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDA RAJULU CRL.PETITION NO.4408 OF 2007 ORDER: This criminal petition is filed by the accused 1 to 5 under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing proceedings in C.C.No.145 of 2007 on the file of Special Mobile Magistrate, Guntur relating to the offences punishable under Sections 465, 468, 471/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Subject matter of the litigation is Ac.1.00 of land originally owned by the 2nd respondent. The 3rd respondent is her son and both of them are complainants in the lower court. Alleging that the 2nd respondent entrusted her patta and other papers to the 2nd petitioner (A-2) for mutation purpose and that A-2 in collusion with A-1 created a forged and fabricated sale deed for the said land in favour of A-1 and that A-3 to A-5 colluded with A-1 and A-2 and figured as attesters and scribe in that forged sale deed, the complainants filed private complaint in C.F.R.No.5851 of 2005 in the lower court. The lower court referred the private complaint to Guntur rural police for investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C and report. After investigation, the police filed final report referring the case as one of civil nature. Thereupon, the respondents 2 and 3 filed protest petition and after recording sworn statements, the lower court took the case on file against A-1 to A-5 for the above said offences. There is no dispute that the 2nd respondent filed O.S.No.690 of 2005 in civil court against A-1 and others for declaration that sale deed dated 23.09.2005 for the said land is null and void. It is contended by the petitioners’ counsel that parallel civil and criminal proceedings are not maintainable in law. He placed reliance on B. Suresh Yadav Vs. Sharifa Bee and another[1] and All Cargo Movers (India) Private Limited and others Vs. Dhanesh Badarmal Jain and another[2] in support of his contention. In my opinion, those two decisions of the apex court are not applicable to facts of this case. It was laid down in those decisions that in case a conflicting or a contrary stand is taken by the complainant in civil suit and criminal cases then the High Court will be justified in quashing the criminal case by exercising inherent powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. In the present case on hand, the petitioners did not file any copies of civil proceedings before the civil court in O.S.No.690 of 2005 in this Court in order to demonstrate that stand taken by the complainant in the civil suit and in this criminal case are contrary and conflicting with each other. In the absence of the proof of the same, the question of quashing criminal proceedings will not arise at all. It cannot be declared that a particular case is only of civil nature. While involving a civil dispute between the parties, one of the parties may resort to criminal activity attracting offences under the Indian Penal Code and other laws. In such a situation, both civil as well as criminal cases are maintainable simultaneously and in a parallel manner. The civil court will decide only civil dispute regarding rights between the parties, whereas the criminal court will consider whether the prosecution or the complainants proved the offences alleged against the accused beyond all possible doubt. In that view of the matter, I do not find any valid and legal reasons to quash proceedings in this case. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. ____________________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDA RAJULU,J. Date:05.12.2009. Gk HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDA RAJULU CRL.PETITION NO.4408 OF 2007 Date: 05.12.2009 Gk. [1] (2009) 1 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 282 [2] (2009) 1 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 947