IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.12701 of 2007 JAI MANGAL KUMAR, SON OF LATE DHANI KUMAR, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- KATKA, P.S. SINGHWARA, DISTRICT- DARBHANGA……………………………….. PETITIONER Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. DINESH YADAV S/0 LATE RAMESHWAR YADAV, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KATKA, P.S. SINGHWARA, DISTT. DARBHANGA……………………………………. OPP. PARTIES. FOR THE PETITIONER :- MR. RATAN KR. KUER,ADVOCATE FOR THE STATE MR. JHARKHANDI UPADHYAYA, APP FOR THE OPPOSITE PARTY :- MR. K.K. JHA, ADVOCATE & MR. LAKSHAN JHA, ADVOCATE ----------- 5 21-4-2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel appearing for opposite party no.2, the complainant. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is against the order of the cognizance dated 6-12-2001` passed in Complaint Case No. 706/01 (TR No. 1665/01) passed by learned Subdivisional Judicial Magistrate, Darbhanga whereby he took cognizance of the offences under sections 419420,467,468, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner is also aggrieved against the order of the revisional court dated 6-1- 2007 whereby his revision against the aforesaid order 2 of the Magistrate has been dismissed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since a title suit bearing no. 6/2001 has been filed by the petitioner before the Munsif, Darbhanga for grant of a decree for Specific Performance of Contract, hence the present criminal proceeding should not continue on the allegation that the contract in question is forged or fabricated. 4. Learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the complainant submit that a complaint was filed as soon as the complainant came to know of the alleged contract and there is no legal bar against cognizance on account of pendency of a suit seeking Specific Performance of a Contract which has been alleged in the complaint petition to be forged and fabricated. 5. In appropriate cases the same party may take resort to a civil suit as well as criminal proceeding. But in the instant case even that issue is 3 not involved . The suit has been instituted by the petitioner whereas the complaint case has been lodged by opposite party no.2 . In such circumstances there is neither any legal bar in the way of the learned Magistrate to take cognizance nor interest of justice requires interference with the criminal proceeding which should not be delayed unreasonably. Hence, this court finds no merit in this application. It is accordingly dismissed. This order shall not prejudice either of the parties either in the complaint case or in the civil suit. Naresh ( Shiva Kirti Singh, J.)