IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. 44217-M of 2001 Date of decision: 10th July, 2008 Raghbir … Petitioner Versus Bimla and others … Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. Sunil Panwar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Vijay S. Kajla, Advocate for respondent No.6. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) One Katur died on 4th October, 1987. Petitioner, who is nephew of Katur, claim that before his death, Katur has executed a will in 1981 in his favour. Respondent-Bimla claim herself to be daughter of Katur. Succession to the estate of Katur is subject matter of civil dispute. In the present case, complaint (Annexure P-1) was instituted by nephews of Katur against Bimla stating that by allowing mutation, the Assistant Collector (Grade II) had acted upon jamabandi which was forged. The grievance is that an interpolation was made and Katur alias Bishna was added to facilitate claim of respondent No.1 that she is the daughter of Katur. CRM No. 44217-M of 2001 In the complaint so filed, the Court had directed the concerned SHO to enquire and submit a report. The report submitted by SHO is Annexure P-2. He has concluded that from his inquiry, it was revealed that Katur and Bishna were one and the same person. Mr. Sunil Panwar appearing for the petitioner has primarily raised three arguments: (a) That the summoning Court committed a grave error when it held that the present complaint was a counter-blast of the civil suit. This could not be said as civil suit was also preferred by petitioner. (b) Bimla is not daughter of Katur but one Bishan Singh and both were different persons. (c) That before jamabandi of 1979-80, nowhere in the revenue record, Katur was recorded as ‘alias Bishna’. I have perused the impugned order (Annexure P-4). Impugned order (Annexure P-4) was also made subject matter of revision before Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal. Two courts below have unanimously held that in the present case, no offence is made out. In a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., I am being called upon to infer in favour of the petitioner on the basis of the facts. No patent illegality has been pointed out. Therefore interference under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not warranted. At this stage, Mr.Sunil Panwar state that if the findings recorded by two courts below are not set aside, it will have a bearing upon the proceedings pending before the civil Court. It has been held by a Full Bench of Lahore High Court on a reference in B.N.Kashayap v. Emperor AIR (32) 1945 Lahore 23 that both civil and criminal courts act in their different spheres and a finding of one Court will not bind another Court, 2 CRM No. 44217-M of 2001 subject to control of Section 43 of Indian Evidence Act. Even otherwise, the impugned orders (Annexure P-4 and P-5) are orders of a preliminary nature before the trial was to be set into motion. They are not based upon any evidence but on prima facie consideration. Therefore, whatever is recorded therein, can have no effect. With these observations, present petition is dismissed. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE July 10, 2008 rps 3