S.U.KHAN, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Coun­sel for the petitioner.
(2.) THIS writ petition is directed against orders, dated 25.8.1989 passed by J.M. III, Gorakhpur in Case No. 2835 of 1988, State v. Lauhar Yadav and others, and dated 26.11.1990 passed by Revisional Court/I A.D.J., Gorakhpur in Criminal Revision No. 178 of 1989, Parash Nath v. State of U.P. and nine others. The revision was directed against order dated 25.8.1989 and was dismissed. Through order dated 25.8.1989, the accused were discharged. The prosecution was launched under sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 120-B and 218, I.P.C. Both the Courts below held that as the documents/sale deeds, regarding which allegations were made, had already been filed before Courts in mutation pro­ceedings and regular suits before civil Court as well as revenue Court, hence pro­ceedings under sections 467 and 468, I.P.C. were not maintainable without the sanction of the Court, where the said documents were originally filed in view of section 195, Cr.P.C. In this regard, learned Counsel for the petitioner has cited an authority in "Sachida Nand Singh v. State of Bihar, 1998 (36) ACC 466 (SC)." The said authority supports the contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner that it was not necessary that complaint should have been filed before the Court where the documents were originally filed.
(3.) HOWEVER , in my opinion, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the following grounds: (1) The dispute is purely civil in nature. The main allegation against the re­spondents was that the accused by committing forgery, got the names of Ramdeo and Bhagi entered in the revenue records along with com­plainant Parash Nath and thereafter got the sale deeds executed in their favour on 27.6.1985 and 11.10.1985 by some other persons impersonat­ing as Ramdeo and Bhagi. Under somewhat similar circumstances, Supreme Court in Inder Mohan Goswsmi and another v. State of Uttaranchal and others, 2008 (60) ACC 1 (SC) = 2007 (59) AIC 30 has held that such type of dispute can better be resolved in civil proceedings and criminal proceedings should be quashed under section 482, Cr.P.C. by the High Court. 2. Revisional Court in its judgment has mentioned that an original suit before regular civil Court and a suit for declaration of title under section 229-B of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act before revenue Court/S.D.O. were also pending. The Court en­quired from the learned Counsel for the petitioner about the fate of the said suits, however, learned Counsel expressed his ignorance. In case, the said suits have been decided in favour of the accused and the deeds/documents in ques­tion have been found to be genuine and valid, then criminal proceed­ings cannot continue. 3. This writ petition was filed 17 years before and during this period of 17 years, only two orders were passed. The first order was passed on 4.4.1991, which is quoted below:- "List after ten days." The said order may have been passed ei­ther on the request of learned Counsel for the petitioner or due to the reason that the learned Counsel for the peti­tioner did not appear, when the case was called out as fresh. The other order is dated 2.2.2000, which is to the following effect:- "Passed over on the request of Sri S.K. Chaturvedi." ;