HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY Crl.P. No. 6526 of 2009 DATED: 09.12.2011 Between: G.Chandrasekhar Reddy .. Petitioner/ Accused And 1. The State of A.P. rep. by Public Prosecutor 2. G.V. Sreenadha Reddy .. Respondents O R D E R:- This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash proceedings in C.C. No. 86 of 2008 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of 1st Class, Piler, Chittoor District on the ground that no prima facie case is made out against the petitioner. The petitioner is the accused and the 2nd respondent is the de facto complainant in the calendar case. Accordingly, they will be referred. The prosecution version in the case is as follows: The de facto complainant is the absolute owner of Ac.0.20 cents in Sy.No.549 and Ac.0.83 cents in Sy.No.550 of Piler Revenue village. The accused, who is the Ex-Village Administrative Officer of Piler revenue village, filed a suit i.e O.S. No. 17 of 2002 on the file of the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Piler for partition and separate possession of his share in Sy.No. 550 against the de facto complainant and two others. The de facto complainant filed written statement. He verified and found that the accused tampered with the revenue records in respect of Sy.Nos.549 and 550 by adding his name in the place of G.V. Chandrasekhar Reddy, father of the de facto complainant, by deleting the letter “V”. On the complaint of the de facto complainant the Mandal Revenue Officer, Piler conducted detailed enquiry and he also found that the accused tampered with the records and consequently the records were rectified. The accused also filed O.S. No. 263 of 2001 before the Court at Piler for partition and separate possession of Ac.00.20 cents in Sy.No.549 of Piler village and it was transferred to the Court of IV Additional Junior Civil Judge, Thirupati where it was numbered as O.S. No. 1148 of 2005. Further, on 27.10.2007, the de facto complainant filed complaint, before the learned Magistrate who forwarded it to the Piler Police Station under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. where it was registered in Cr.No.152 of 2007 for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 468 and 471 IPC. Heard. Learned counsel for the accused contends that the allegations are false and purely civil in nature and hence the Calendar Case is not tenable. Prima facie, there is good material against the accused about the alleged offences. The pendency of civil suits is not a bar to try the criminal case. What is required is, in both the matters the question of genuineness of the documents is to be established exhaustively and independently taking all necessary measures. 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.” The above decision is well applicable here. Hence, there are no merits in the petition. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is dismissed. __________________________ G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J 09.12.2011 bcj [1] AIR 2010 SC 3624