A.K.Roopanwal, J. - (1.) This application under section 482. Cr. P.C. has been moved for quashing the charge sheet submitted by the police in Case Crime No. 40 of 2004, under sections 366, 367, 120. 467, 468. 471, 120-B and 342. I.P.C. Police Station Sarai Inayat, Phoolpur. District Allahabad. It appears from the record that an application under section 156(3). Cr. P.C. was moved by O.P. No. 2, Ram Lal Gupta. against the applicants in the Court below alleging therein that he alongwith his brother Shyam Lal Gupta are the Bhumidars of Plot No. 386 area 0.23 hectare situate in Village Sahso. Pargana Jhusi, Tehsil Phoolpur, District Allahabad. On 12.11.2002 the applicants took him and his brother to their house and there they were administered liquor and an agreement of sale of 22 x10 ft. of land in the above plot was got executed in their favour. O.P. No. 2 and his brother were kept confined in the house of the accused persons for 2-3 days and were threatened that in case they disclosed the factum of execution of the agreement of sale they would be killed. No such agreement of sale was ever executed by O.P. No. 2 and his brother. He moved an application on 14.11.2002 in the office of the Sub Registrar, Phoolpur. District Allahabad and prayed for non-registration of the agreement of sale.
(2.) The above application under section 156 (3). Cr. P.C. was registered and investigated by the police. After investigation charge against the applicants under sections 366. 367, 420. 467, 468, 471. 120-B and 342, I.Y.C. was submitted. The affidavits have been exchanged between the parties. Heard Mr. N.D. Shukla, learned Counsel for the applicants, learned AGA for the State. Mr. Arvind Srivastava. learned Counsel for O.Y. No. 2 and perused the record. It has been argued by Mr. Shukla that even if all the allegations as contained in the FIR regarding which the evidence was collected are accepted to be true on their face value that cannot form the basis for the criminal trial. The allegations related to the validity or invalidity of the agreement of sale. The fact as to whether the agreement of sale was obtained in the manner as alleged in the FIR or not cannot be decided by a Criminal Court as it is solely within the arena of the Civil Court to decide the same. If the Criminal Court is allowed to decide the above controversy and the Civil Court finally decides that agreement of sale was a validly executed document then certainly there would be two different judgments of the Courts and if the accused-applicants remained in jail even for a day that day cannot be returned.
(3.) To the above, it has been argued by Mr. Srivastava that there is no bar that the criminal proceedings cannot go on when the civil proceedings are pending. He also argued that the conduct of the applicants has been such that they are not entitled to any relief. According to him, after the institution of the criminal proceedings a case for specific performance of contract was filed by the applicants in the concerned Civil Court. In that Court an imposter was introduced by them and through him a written statement was got filed. When this fact came to the knowledge of O.P. No. 2. he complained to the concerned Civil Court and the concerned Civil Court took cognizance and ultimately the written statement earlier filed by the imposter was taken back. In this view of the matter, it can safely be said that the attempt to get the written statement filed through an imposter by the applicants shows that the version of the applicants is wrong and whatever was paid in the FIR of O.P. No. 2 is correct and therefore, no indulgence should be given in the proceedings under section 482, Cr. P.C. more particularly when such exercise should be sparingly done. It is no doubt true that there is no bar in parallel civil and criminal proceedings regarding the matter in issue but that should be in a very exceptional case. A purely civil proceeding should not be allowed to be agitated in the form of criminal proceeding. Meaning thereby that the criminal proceedings should not be a camouflage to the civil proceedings and the criminal proceedings should not be used for pressurising other side for dropping the civil proceedings or civil action taken by him or her. My view is fortified by the ruling of the Apex Court in Inder Mohan Goswarni and another v. State of Uttaranchal and others, 2007 (59) AIC 30 (SC).;