KANT TRIPATHI, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the revisionist and the learned A.G.A. for the respondents and perused the record. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order dated 26.7.2010 (annexure 2) passed by the learned Special Judge, Dacoity Af­fected Area, Jalaun, District Oral as well as the order dated 28.4.2010 (Annexure 1) passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Oral in regard to complaint case No. 176 of 2009, Bhagwati v. Ramdas and others pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Oral at Jalaun. The main allegation in the complaint is that the husband of the respondent No. 2 was the owner of the certain agricultural lands. He died and consequently the re­spondent No. 2 inherited the property. It is alleged that the petitioners, in order to grab the property of the husband of the respon­dent No. 2 on a forged Will and got mu­tated their name in the revenue record. Therefore, in the complaint case, the Will has been alleged as a forged and fabricated document. The learned Magistrate after considering the entire materials on record found that a prima facie case for framing charges under sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506, I.P.C. was made out against the petitioners. The revision preferred by the petitioner has also been dismissed by the learned Special Judge.
(2.) THE learned Counsel for the peti­tioners submitted that a civil litigation is already going on between the respondent No. 2 and the petitioners in which genu­ineness of the Will is the subject matter. The learned Counsel for the petitioners further submitted that at present a second appeal has been filed in this Court which is pend­ing. The petitioners have lost their case in the courts below. It was also submitted that so long the civil case is pending, the criminal case can­not be filed. It is well settled that a civil as well as criminal proceeding in regard to same act may be launched and continued simultane­ously. If certain acts constitute an offence, the criminal proceeding can not be held up or kept in abeyance till the finalization of the civil proceeding.
(3.) IN the case of Syed Askari Hadi Ali Augustine Imam v. State (Delhi Admn.), (2009) 5 SCC 528 the Apex Court has held that 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. 3. The aforesaid principles have been reiterated by the Apex Court in the case of Devendra and others v. State of U.P. and an­other, (2009) 7 SCC 495 = 2009 (67) ACC 886 (SC) (para 13).;