Madhya Pradesh High Court
Trilok Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh Thr on 29 January, 2019
1
The High Court of Madhya Pradesh
MCRC 29440/2018
Trilok Singh vs. State of MP & Anr.
Gwalior, dtd. 29/01/2019
Shri Arun Dudawat, counsel for the petitioner.
Shri RVS Ghuraiya, Public Prosecutor for the respondent No.1/
State.
This petition under Section 482 of CrPC has been filed for quashing the FIR in Crime No.251/2018 registered at Police Station Mungaoli, District Ashok Nagar for offence under Sections 419, 420, 467 and 468 of IPC.
The necessary facts for the disposal of the present petition in short are that the respondent No.2 has lodged a FIR against the petitioner that the father of the petitioner is still alive and by preparing a forged ''Will'' of his father, the petitioner has got his name mutated in the revenue records on the strength of the said Will and now, taking advantage of the said mutation, the petitioner is trying to dispossess the respondent No.2 from the property in dispute.
It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner as well as the father of the petitioner have filed a suit for declaration of title and for possession against the respondent No.2 in respect of same property. Therefore, the lis between the parties is already sub judice before the Court of competent jurisdiction and under these circumstances, the parallel criminal proceedings should not be allowed. However, it is fairly conceded by the counsel for the 2 petitioner that the father of the petitioner is still alive and there is no gift deed in favour of the petitioner and the ''Will'' executed by the testator, would come into force only after his death and since his father is still alive, therefore, he was not entitled to get his name mutated in the revenue records on the basis of ''Will''. It is further submitted that the order of mutation has already been set aside in appeal.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. As per the allegations made in the FIR, the petitioner by getting his name illegally mutated in the revenue records, on the strength of the ''Will'', which alleged to have been executed by his father, the petitioner is trying to forcibly dispossess the respondent No.2. Admittedly, the father of the petitioner is still alive. Whether the ''Will'' is genuine or not; whether the petitioner has any right or title in the property or not; and whether the respondent has any right or title in the property or not, are certain disputed questions of fact, which can be decided by the trial Court only, but one thing is clear that the ''Will'' always come into force after the death of the testator. In the present case, the testator is still alive. Thus, the mutation of name of the petitioner in the revenue records on the strength of the ''Will'' was illegal and according to the petitioner, the said order of mutation has already been set aside in appeal.
It is the contention of the petitioner that civil suit is pending 3 between the parties in respect of the property in dispute, therefore the simultaneous criminal proceedings should not be allowed to go on.
The submission made by the counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted.
The Supreme Court in the case of Devendra and others Vs. State of UP and another, (2009) 7 SCC 495 and Syed Askari Hadi Ali Augustine Imam and another Vs. State (Delhi Administration) and another, (2009) 5 SCC 528 has set the dispute at naught. In the case of Devendra (supra), the Supreme Court has held as under:-
"13. There cannot, however, be any doubt or dispute whatsoever that in a given case a civil suit as also a criminal proceeding would be maintainable. They can run simultaneously. Result in one proceeding would not be binding on the court determining the issue before it in another proceeding. In P. Swaroopa Rani v. M. Hari Narayana, (2008) 5 SCC 765 the law was stated, thus: (SCC p. 769, para 11) "11. It is, however, well settled that in a given case, civil proceedings and criminal proceedings can proceed simultaneously. Whether civil proceedings or criminal proceedings shall be stayed depends upon the fact and circumstances of each case."
In the case of Syed Askari Hadi Ali Augustine Imam (supra) the Supreme Court has held as under:-
"21. Indisputably, in a given case, a civil proceeding as also a criminal proceeding may proceed simultaneously. Cognizance in a criminal proceeding can be taken by the criminal court upon arriving at the satisfaction that there exists a prima facie case. The question as to whether in the facts and circumstances of the case one or the other proceedings would be stayed would depend upon several factors including the 4 nature and the stage of the case.
22. It is, however, now well settled that ordinarily a criminal proceeding will have primacy over the civil proceeding. Precedence to a criminal proceeding is given having regard to the fact that disposal of a civil proceeding ordinarily takes a long time and in the interest of justice the former should be disposed of as expeditiously as possible. The law in this behalf has been laid down in a large number of decisions. We may notice a few of them."
Thus, it is clear that since the findings given by the Civil Court are not binding on the Criminal Court, therefore, both the proceedings may go on simultaneously. Even otherwise, in the present case, it was admitted by the petitioner that his father is still alive and, therefore, the petitioner was not entitled to get his name mutated in the revenue records on the strength of the ''Will'' which has not come into force till today.
Considering the admitted facts as well as considering the disputed questions of fact as well as the the fact that civil and criminal proceeding may go simultaneously, this Court is of the considered opinion that this is not a fit case for quashment of FIR in FIR in Crime No.251/2018 registered at Police Station Mungaoli, District Ashok Nagar for offence under Sections 419, 420, 467 and 468 of IPC.
Accordingly, petition fails and is hereby dismissed.
(G. S. Ahluwalia) Judge MKB MAHENDRA KUMAR BARIK 2019.02.01 17:17:36 +05'30'