- (1.) This revisional application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is directed for quashing the proceedings in Nakshalbari P. S. Case No. 82 of 2000 under Section 420/120B I. P. C.
(2.) On 26.8.2000, O. P. No. 2 that is Mandan Singh figuring as de facto complainant made a prayer under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the Id. S. D. J. M. Siliguri alleging that petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 and the complainant were joint owners in possession of landed property with pucca structures in plot No. 911, Khatian Nos. 514-517 of Mouza Uttar Bagdogra, P. S. Naxalbari. The complainant entrusted his elder brothers that is petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 to look after his 1/3rd share in the disputed property and he used to visit the said land from time to time as the complainant being a government servant had stay at Balia due to his official assignment. Taking advantage of the absence of the complainant, petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 created a false and forged Deed in favour of petitioner Nos. 4 and 5 and got the deed executed and registered. When this fact came to the notice of the complainant, he lodged the FIR and at the same time filed title suit for declaration and for cancellation of the said forged Deed. The points for considering in this revisional application is that de facto complainant had filed title suit in respect of the said property the instant criminal proceedings should not be allowed to proceed and it should be quashed immediately. Mr. Shampa Sarkar, ld. advocate appearing for the petitioner has contended before me that a person should not be vexed twice inasmuch as when the de facto complainant filed title suit in respect of the said property and for cancellation of the Deed said to have been forged, he cannot initiate a criminal proceedings over the self-same deed and cannot proceed with the case of cheating. Thus, the allegations are that the petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 had cheated the de facto complainant and behind his back disposed of his property to petitioners 4 and 5 by creating a false and forged deed and at the same time, he lodged a criminal case for cheating alleging that the de facto complainant was cheated by the acts of petitioner Nos. 1 and 2. In support of her contention, the ld. advocate for the petitioner refer to a case of Company Law which has got no application to the present facts and circumstances of the case.
(3.) The only point for determination is whether the criminal proceeding can go simultaneously with the civil suit.;