A.S.Nehra, J. - (1.) Ram Sarup ha filed this petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing F.I.R. No. 267 dated 22.8.1991 registered in Police Station City Hansi under Section 420/419, 465/468, 120 - B/471 Indian Penal Code at the instance of respondent No.
(2.) Petitioner has stated that this matter pertains to ownership and possess on of agricultural land regarding which respondent No. 2 has already filed a civil suit for declaration against the son of the petitioner, that a legally valid decree had been passed in favor of the petitionerTs son by the Civil Court at Hansi on 17/3/1989 on the basis of the written statement filed by respondent No. 2 and on the basis of the statement made by her in the Court, that in view of the decree son of the petitioner has become owner of the disputed land and respondent No. 2 ceased to have any right or interest on the said property, that respondent No. 2 filed a civil suit on 31/10/1989 challenging the decree dated 17/3/1989 passed in Civil Suit No. 117-C of 1989 and that on the basis of the pleadings of the parties, issues were framed in the Civil suit and evidence was being recorded by the civil Court at Hansi. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the dispute between the parties is entirely of a civil nature regarding which civil litigation between the respondent No. 2 and the son of the petitioner is already going on for the last four years. The learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed that proceedings pending in the criminal court may be stayed till the decision of the civil suit filed by respondent No. 2.
(3.) It has been held by the Supreme Court in Pratibha Rani v. Suraj Kumar and another, as under: The two remedies is are not mutually exclusive but clearly to extensive 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 life. 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 impon. It T not at all intelligible to us to take that if the husband dishonest misappropriates the stridhan wife, though kept in his custody, that would bar prosecution under section 406 I.P.C. or render the ingredients of Section 405 I.P.C. nugatory or abortive. To say that because the stridhan of a married woman is kept in the custody of her husband, no action against him can be taken as no offence is committed is to override and distort the real intent of the law.;