O.P.JAIN, J. - (1.) THIS is an application under Section 482, Cr.P.C. for quashing the proceedings in a criminal case instituted by respondent No. 2 Smt. Zeenath against the applicants.
(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that respondent Smt. Zeenath was married to applicant No. 2 Mohd. Farooq in the year 1982 but their relations became strained after sometime. Respondent No. 2 filed a suit in the year 1983 for the recovery of the articles said to have been given at the time of marriage. After filing the civil suit she filed a criminal complaint under Section 406, I.P.C. in the year 1986. The present applicants filed Criminal Misc. Application No. 1132 of 1993 in this Court and it was contended that during the pendency of civil proceedings criminal proceedings cannot go on. The application was disposed of by this Court on 19.1.1993 with a direction that the objection may be considered and decided by the learned Magistrate on the basis of facts established by the applicants. In these circumstances the accused-applicants again raised same objection before the learned Magistrate who has dismissed the same vide his order dated 15th April, 1993 Annexure '4'.
(3.) THE learned Magistrate has referred to the case of Prathibha Rani v. Suraj Kumar, 1985 Cri App R (SC)96 : (1985 Cri LJ 817). The case is also reported in AIR 1985 SC 628 and the following observations have been made in para 21: "There are a large number of cases where criminal law and civil law can run side by side. The two remedies are not mutually exclusive but clearly coextensive and essentially differ in their content and consequence. The object of the criminal law is to punish an offender who commits an offence against a person, property or the State for which the accused, on proof of the offence, is deprived of his liberty and in some cases even his wife. This does not, however, affect the civil remedies at all for suing the wrong doer in cases like arson, accidents, etc. It is an anathema to suppose that when a civil remedy is available, a criminal prosecution is completely barred. The two types of actions are quite different in content, scope and import." ;