by one of the learned coordinate Bench of this Court, that Complaint Case No. 1975/2022 and Cr. Revision No. 152/2023, were both set-aside by this Court through Cr. Misc. No. 24939 of 2025 dated 25.04.2025, for the reason that while recording the order of dismissal, learned Magistrate exceeded its jurisdiction and appreciated the fact instead of Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.31712 of 2025 dt.08-08-2025 9/16 finding a prima facie case, which may adversely affect the right of informant/O.P. No. 2 during pending civil suit, where the core issue to decide the genuineness of signature of father of the informant. It is submitted that the original sale deed is with the petitioners, and if they have clean hands, then, they must produce the original certificate before the court for examination of its genuineness qua signature of his father, who said to execute the alleged sale deed in favour of the late Manorama Devi. It is pointed out that the land in issue is located in the prime location of the district of Bhagalpur and in due course of time, it becomes costly, and, thereafter, the petitioners, under conspiracy, by creating a forged signature of the father of the informant, as he usually lived outside Bhagalpur, firstly created a sale deed in favour of the mother and thereafter claimed the land as her legal heirs.

15. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2/informant categorically submitted that the factual allegation of this case, as raised through the present FIR, prima facie made out a cognizable offence and the same is not falls under any of the parameters as available under paragraph 102 of Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.31712 of 2025 dt.08-08-2025 10/16 State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal [(1992) Supp (1) SCC 335], hence, the present petition for quashing of FIR is fit to be set aside/quashed.

16. It is submitted that this is not a case where a criminal allegation was raised for the first time in the year 2025, admittedly, the complaint case was lodged in 2022. It is also submitted that the pending civil suit does not bar the criminal case, if occasion so arises, as such. In support of his submission, learned counsel relied upon the legal report of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as available through Devendra and Others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr. reported in (2009) 7 SCC 495 and S.N. Vijayalakshmi & Ors. Vs. The State of Karnataka and Anr. [2025 SCC Online SC 1575].

17. It would be apposite to reproduce the FIR being Tilkamanjhi P.S. Case No. 74 of 2025 dated 02.04.2025, which reads as under for ready reference:

18. It would also be apposite to reproduce paragraph Nos. 7, 9, 11 & 12 of the judgment as available through Cr. Misc. No. 24939/2025 dated 25.04.2025 passed by this Court, where the order dated 13.09.2024 passed in Cr. Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.31712 of 2025 dt.08-08-2025 13/16 Revision No. 152/2023 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge - XI, Bhagalpur and also the order dated 18.10.2023, as passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate - 1st Class, Bhagalpur in Complaint Case No. 1975/2022 are set aside with a direction to pass a fresh order qua the aforesaid complaint case in accordance with law, which reads as under:

10. Considering the submissions as canvassed by learned counsel for the petitioner and also the impugned order dated 18.10.2023, it appears prima-facie that learned Magistrate exceeded its jurisdiction while recording the impugned order of dismissal under section 203 of Cr.P.C., as the materials available on record appears to be appreciated in its probative terms which may prejudice legal rights of petitioner in civil suit as discussed above, which is not Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.31712 of 2025 dt.08-08-2025 14/16 permissible in view of aforesaid legal provisions as available through Amannullah ' case (supra). Revisional court also failed to appreciate aforesaid aspects.

11. Accordingly, the order dated 13.09.2024 passed in Criminal Revision No. 152/2023 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-XI, Bhagalpur and also the order dated 18.10.2023 as passed by learned Judicial Magistrate - 1 st Class, Bhagalpur in Complaint Case No. 1975/2022, are hereby set-aside with a direction to the court of learned Judicial Magistrate - 1st Class, Bhagalpur/concerned court as to pass a fresh order qua Complaint Case No. 1975 of 2022 with available materials in accordance with law, as discussed aforesaid without being prejudice.

12. Accordingly, this application stands disposed of."

19. It would further apposite to reproduce para 13 of Devendra case (supra), which reads as such:

20. It would also be apposite to reproduce para 42 of S.N. Vijayalakshmi case (supra), which reads as under:

21. In view of the aforesaid, as the allegation raised through the present FIR is of execution of a sale deed using forged signature of the father of the informant/O.P. No. 2 Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.31712 of 2025 dt.08-08-2025 16/16 under conspiracy, in furtherance of which land in issue was found occupied/encroached on instance of petitioners and, moreover, original sale deed of land in issue is with petitioners, which yet to be collected by I.O. of this case to ascertain its genuineness, which is core issue qua allegation of forgery and cheating, which are cognizable criminal offences, therefore, this Court is not inclined to entertain the prayer of petitioners in view of sole argument that civil matter is pending between the parties as per legal ratio available through S.N. Vijayalakshmi case (supra), as both civil case and criminal case can co-exist, accordingly, aforementioned petitions stand dismissed.

22. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the court concerned, henceforth.

(Chandra Shekhar Jha, J) Rajeev/-