PURSHOTTAM KUMARI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A. K. Roopanwal, J. This writ petition is directed against the or ders dated 27-2-2006 and 9-10-2007 passed by the Courts below. Vide order dated 27-2-2007 application 7-B moved by the petitioner for his discharge and the discharge of other accused from the case was rejected.

(2.) IT appears from the facts of the case that criminal case No. 2193/05 was pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Najibabad, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, 506, IPC against the petitioner and some others. The main allegation against the accused persons was that they fabricated a false Will dated 14-10-01 alleged to have been executed by Smt. Sita Devi. According to the petitioner the Will in dispute was a genuine Will and about this Will a civil case No. 150/05 was pending in the Court of Civil Judge, Najibabad. In this case interim injunction had already been issued. In such circumstances the" continu ance of criminal proceedings would cause an irreparable harm to the accused and therefore, it was expedient that they should be discharged. The Magistrate did not agree with the contention of the petitioner and rejected the application vide order dated 27-2-2006. When revision No. 83/06 was preferred against the order dated 27-2-2006 that was dismissed by the revisional Court vide order dated 9-10-2007. Hence, this writ petition.

(3.) IT has been held in 2001 (43) ACC 1106, Kamla Devi Agarwal v. State of West Bengal and others, that the standard of proof in civil and criminal proceed ings being different, hence, during the pendency of civil proceedings, criminal proceedings cannot be quashed. In this case the complainant had made out a prima facie case against the accused persons of forging of a document. This Ruling of the Supreme Court was adopted by this Court in 2002 (45) ACC 63, Jhinkoo and others v. State of U. P. and another. This was a case where a civil suit for cancellation of sale deed was pending and even then criminal prosecution started. The Court found that the judgment of the civil suit shall not be relevant under Sections 40, 41 and 42 of the Evidence Act. The criminal proceedings were not disturbed.