- (1.) HON'ble Shri Kant Tripathi, J.Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
(2.) BY means of this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the order dated 3.6.2010 passed by the learned Special Judge, J. P. Nagar in Criminal Revision No. 24 of 2010 and the order dated 4.2.2010 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, J. P. Nagar in Misc. Case No. 1514 of 2009 have been impugned. It appears that the applicant moved an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. with the allegations that the sale deed relied on by the respondent Nos. 3 to 5 is a forged document and the same was allegedly executed by one Subhash Prakash on 28.11.2008. On enquiry, the applicant found that the alleged seller Subhash Prakash was not in existence and some one else impersonated as Subhash Prakash and executed the sale deed. It is also alleged that the respondent Nos. 3 to 5 in collusion with the witnesses Harish Chandra and Babu Ram, in order to grab the property of Waqf, produced someone else as Subhash Prakash and obtained the sale deed. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate was of the view that the dispute is of civil nature and the question whether or not the sale deed is a forged document, can only be decided by the Civil Court. It was also held that a litigation is also pending in the Revenue Court. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate relying on Indian Oil Corporation v. NEPC India Ltd and others, (2006) VI SCC 736, formed the opinion that criminal proceeding in regard to a civil dispute should not be permitted to proceed.
(3.) ACTING on the same line the Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the revision after referring to the observations of the Apex Court in the aforesaid case. In the case of Syed Askari Hadi Ali Augustine Imam v. State (Delhi Admn.), (2009) 5 SCC 528, the Apex Court has held: "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.................It is 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. If primacy is to be given to a criminal proceeding, the civil suit must be determined on its own merit, keeping in view the evidence brought on record therein and not in terms of the evidence brought in the criminal proceeding. ;