IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.47716 of 2007 SURENDRA SINGH SON OF LATE RAMADYA SINGH Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. Jagat Singh son of Raghunandan Singh 3. Ramchandra Singh son of Jagat Narain Singh ----------- 3 12/2/2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for opposite party nos. 2 and 3. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 7.9.2007 passed in Criminal Revision no. 191 of 2007/14 of 2007 by which the revisional court set aside the order dated 27.1.2007 of Sri Ashok Kumar, Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Gopalganj in Trial No. 1347 of 2007 taking cognizance against opposite party nos. 2 and 3 under sections 420, 467 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. Assailing the revisional order, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the same transaction could constitute both civil and criminal offences. He next submitted that the revisional court erred by entering into defence of the opposite party and interfered with the order. This Court has gone through the allegations in the complaint which are short and cryptic and seeks declaration of the sale deed as a void document. The revisional court arrived at the conclusion that the complaint case essentially seeks to question title which could not be resolved by a criminal court. There can be no dispute with the proposition that an offence can constitute both, a civil and criminal wrong but that principle, on the face of the allegation in the present case, has no application. Even if the revisional court has made - 2 - discussions more than necessary, but the crux of the decision remains that the dispute between the parties was of civil nature for which criminal law could not be invoked. This Court shall not restrain its hand under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the submission that the order contained more than what it was required for the purpose of decision. It is further clarified that in any civil proceeding the observations made in the revisional order shall have no effect and the civil proceeding has to be decided on its own merit in accordance with law. This application stands dismissed. (Navin Sinha, J.) AMIN