JUDGMENT 1. - Both these miscellaneous petitions are with regard to the same land, the main contesting parties are the same ; and in both the petitions, a common question of law is involved. Hence, they are being disposed of by this common order. 2. Shivsingh non-petitioner filed a complaint on 28th May, 85 against the petitioners and one Harindrapal Singh, in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Jaipur City, Jaipur, which is No. 79/85. That complaint is attached to Misc. Petition No. 31 /86 as Annexure-4. Prior to this complaint, Shiv Singh had filed a complaint against the petitioners on 19th March 84 That complaint was sent to police station u/s. 156, Cr. P C., and FIR No 79/84 was registered there. On 19th March, 84, on the same facts, Shiv Singh filed a other complaint which was also sent to police station u/s. 156, Cr. P. C., and on its basis, FIR Ho. 80/84 was registered. The police investigated the matter, and in FIR 79/84, submitted the final report which is attached as Annexure-1 to Misc. Petition No. 31/86. In FIR No- 80/84. also the police submitted its final report. Against that final report, Shiv Singh filed a protest petition on 6th Nov., 84, which was dismissed. Thus the final report in FIR No. 80/84, was also accepted. There after, Shiv Singh, on the same facts filed a third complaint on 28th May, 85 in the court of ACJM, Jaipur u/s. 406 419, 420, 467, 469, 471 & 120 B, IPC (Annexure-4). The learned Magistrate recorded statements u/s s. 200 & 202 Cr.P.C. and took cognizance against the petitioners on 20th Nov., 85. That order of taking cognizance has been challenged in Misc. Petition No. 31/86. 3. Shiv Singh also filed a complaint against Harindrapal Singh, Smt. Rooplata, Inderjeetsingh Jiwansingh, Ashwanikumar Ashwamegh kumar, Rambux and H. S Joshi. This complaint was registered as No. 29/86, which is attached as Annexure-1 to Misc. petition No. 710/86. This complaint was also with regard to the same land and for the same offences for which the earlier complaint was filed by Shivsingh. and on which, cognizance has taken, which has been challenged in Misc. petition No. 31/86. In this complaint, statements u/ss 200 & 202 Cr. petition No. 710/86. This complaint was also with regard to the same land and for the same offences for which the earlier complaint was filed by Shivsingh. and on which, cognizance has taken, which has been challenged in Misc. petition No. 31/86. In this complaint, statements u/ss 200 & 202 Cr. P. C. were recorded and vide order dated 22nd Sept, 1986, the learned Magistrate took cognizance against the accused persons, which has been challenged by the petitioners in Misc. Petition No. 710/86. 4. It is now necessary here to mention certain facts of the case, for deciding both the petitions which have been alleged by the petitioners. There are three important documents which are agreements to sell the first agreement to sell is dated 30th April, 1981 in between Harindarapal Singh & Jiwansingh the second one is dated 10th Feb., 1982, executed by Jiwansingh, Ashwani Kumar, and Shivsingh; and the third one is dated 21st March, 1985 between Shivsingh and Ashwanikumar, Jiwan Singh and Ashwameghkumar. 5. Mr. R.N. Surolia, the learned counsel for non-petitioner Harindarapal Singh has mentioned that Th. Jiwan Singh is the khatedar of the land in dispute. He had taken loan from Bank of Baroda, Branch power house Road, Jaipur, mortgaging his agricultural fields and also hypothecating his agricultural equipments, machinery, articles etc. as security against the said loan for the repayment of which, his both the sons, namely, Ashwanikumar and Ashwamegh Kumar had stood as guarantors. That loan was not repaid. So Civil Suit No. 5/77 for recovery of Rs. 76,845.27 was filed by the said bank on 8th Feb., 1977 against Jiwansingh and his sons. Jiwansingh had also taken loan from the State Bank of India, Sanganeri Gate Branch, Jaipur, to the tune of Rs. 1.05,225/- on various dates mortgaging his khatedari agricultural land and residential property in Madrampuia Tehsil and other move-ables. Towards that loan, Jiwansingh could repay a sum of Rs 39,102/-, and for recovery of that amount, a civil suit No, 41/79 was filed by the State Bank of India In both the suits, the prayer was for recovery of the aforesaid money through sale of the mortgaged and hypothecate properties. Jiwansingh and his sons in order to save their properties from sale by way of auction through court, approached Harindrapal singh, As Harindrapal Singh did not own any agricultural land and he needed land for his family. Jiwansingh and his sons in order to save their properties from sale by way of auction through court, approached Harindrapal singh, As Harindrapal Singh did not own any agricultural land and he needed land for his family. he agreed to purchase the agricultural lands of Jiwansingh and his sons, in consequence of mutual negotiations Jiwansingh and his sons agreed to sell the agricultural lands, and they executed agreement to sell, on 30th April, 1981, Harindrapalsingh paid Rs. 10,000/- in cash to Jiwansingh and his sons, and he was put in actual physical possession of the lands in dispute by them on 30th April, 1981, and since then Harindarapalsingh has been in its continuous actual physical and cultivatory possession. It is alleged that this fact was in the knowledge of Shivsingh, who is partner of M/s Kamal Engineering Works, Jaipur. It was further contended by Mr. Surolia that Jinwansing feeling more burdened with the interest-amount in the Civil Suit No. 41/79, asked Harindrapalsingh in the first week of September, 1983, to relieve him of the same by making payment of the sale-price of the lands agreed to be sold on 30th April, 1981. Harindarapal singh paid a sum of Rs. 2,23,128.50 to Jiwansingh vide cheque No. 192616 dated 15th September, 1983, It was further submitted by Mr. Surolia that Shivsingh, partner of M/s Kamal Engineering Works, was hand-in-glove with Jiwansingh, and as such, he became aware of the insistence made by Jiwansingh on Harindrapal singh for the payment of the balance sale-price of the lands, Hence, Shivsingh is alleged to have issued a wrong notice to Jiwansingh. Thereafter, Shivsingh having learnt about the above payment made by Harindrapalsingh to Jiwansingh, filed, a revenue-suit u/s 88, 188, 91 and 92-A of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, on 16th September, 1983 against Jiwansingh, in the court of SDO, Amber on the basis of agreement to sell of the Agricultural land" in dispute, for specific performance of the alleged contract dated 21st March, 1983, It was also alleged that the suit filed before before the SDO Amber was not maintainable as the revenue court had no jurisdiction to try it and the case was exclusively triable by a civil court. It is further alleged that Shivsingh again filed a civil suit for declaration and permanent injunction, against. It is further alleged that Shivsingh again filed a civil suit for declaration and permanent injunction, against. The Jiwansingh and his son Ashanikumar, in the court of Munsif, Jaipur District, Jaipur, on 24th Oct., 1983, and obtained a temporary injunction restraining them from executing and registering sale-deeds in favour of anyone else. That suit was also filed on the basis of agreement to sell dated 21st March, 1983. In spite of raising objection about the jurisdiction of the court by Jiwansingh, the SDO, Amber, vide his order dated 9th Jan. 1984, appointed a Receiver, who took over possession of the fields in question on 12th Jan, 1984. In Fard-Mauka prepared by the Tehsildar, it has been mentioned that the house situated in the fields in question, was looked and the key of the lock was with Harindrapalsingh, who was out of India at that time. His manager presented an application on 12th Jan., 1984, before the Receiver in presence of Shivsingh mentioning that those fields had been purchased by Harindrapalsingh from Jiwansingh and his sons, and he was put in its cultivator possession, and Jiwansingh and his sons had nothing to do with those fields. In February, 1984, Harindrapalsingh made a grievance to the SDO, Amber for his unlawful dispossession from the fields in question by appointing a Receiver. The order of appointment of the Receiver, was challenged by Jiwansingh before the Revenue Appellate Authority, who dismissed the said appeal on 28th Nov., 1985 Jiwansingh then challenged that order in revision before the Board of Revenue. In the meantime, the SDO, after inquiry and hearing the parties felt satisfied with the genuine of the grievance of Harindrapalsingh made before him vide application under O. 40. R. 1(2) CPC. read with Section 208 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, and vacated his earlier order dated 9th., Jan, 1984, by which, he had appointed Receiver by his order dated 30th Jan., 1986, and ordered restoration of the possession of the fields in question to Harindrapalsingh, and that was complied with. Against that order, Shivesingh went in appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority, where he filed an application for appointment of a Receiver over the fields in question, which is still pending. Against that order, Shivesingh went in appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority, where he filed an application for appointment of a Receiver over the fields in question, which is still pending. Shivsingh realising that his suit filed before the SDO, Amber, was without jurisdiction and was not maintainable, filed a civil suit on 21st March, 1986 in the court of District Judge, Jaipur District, Jaipur, for specific performance of the alleged contract dated 21st March, 1983. In that suit, Shivsingh prayed that the defendants be directed to execute the sale-deed with regard to the property mentioned in para 5 of the plaint. It was also prayed by him that the agreement to sell in favour of Harindrapal Singh executed by defendant No. 3, be declared null and void and be also prayed therein to remove the receiver appointed, and further claimed mesne profits etc. 6. The facts which were brought to my notice by Mr. Surolia, the learned counsel for Harindrapalsing non-petitioner, have not been disputed by the learned counsel for Shivsingh ana others, 7. Now, the position is that with regard to the lands in question, there are agreements to sell which have been challenged as forged ones-they have been challenged in the revenue court. Munsif Court and lastly, in the court of District Judge, Jaipur District Jaipur. 8. It was argued by Mr. K.M. Lodha, the learned counsel for the petitioners that with regard to these very lands. Shivsingh has filed criminal complaints alleging that the agreements to sell are forged documents. Those complaints were sent to police station u/s 156(3). Cr.P.C. for investigation. FIRS, were registered, and the notice have submitted final reports which have been accepted. Thereafter, when the suit before the revenue court was filed, Shivsingh filed two complaints on the same facts before the ACJM who, after recording statements u/ss 200 & 202 Cr.P.C. took cognizance against the petitioners, which has been challenged in these two miscellaneous petitions. 9. It was argued by Mr. Surolia and Mr. Lodha that the learned Magistrate has committed error in taking cognizance against the petitioners. According to them, civil litigation was pending and the matter is of civil nature, therefore, the learned Magistrate should have dismissed the complaints, and the order taking cognizance is an illegal order, 10. Mr. G. G, Sharma appearing for Shivsingh in Misc. petition No. 710/86 and Mr. According to them, civil litigation was pending and the matter is of civil nature, therefore, the learned Magistrate should have dismissed the complaints, and the order taking cognizance is an illegal order, 10. Mr. G. G, Sharma appearing for Shivsingh in Misc. petition No. 710/86 and Mr. M. M. Ranjan appearing for Shivsingh in Misc. Petition No. 31/86, have argued that the learned Magistrate has committed no error in taking cognizance against the petitioners. It was also argued by them that this court should not interfere in the matters of taking cognizance u/s 482, Cr.P.C. The learned counsels have been cited a number of case laws in support of their contents. 11. In the case of Ramlubhuya v. State of Rajasthan (1983 RLW 705), a matter of quashing proceedings u/s 482, Cr.P.C. was raised. In that case, the learned Magistrate had taken cognisance of offences against the petitioners. Therein, it was observed as under:- "Taking all these factors into consideration, it can be confidently said that the report of Bhajan singh was totally false and baseless. There was no material on record, which could enable the learned Magistrate to take cognisance of any offence against the petitioners. If there is no material on record to disclose the commission of an offence, the cognisance, should not be taken. Still than if the cognisance is taken, it would amount to a grave error and must be corrected by this court in the exercise of its inherent powers u/s 482, Cr.P.C." 12. In Madanlal and another v. The State of Rajasthan (1979 WLN (UC)212) , the allegations were with regard to purchase of Moong and also that the negotiations were dishonest or fraudulent. Payment of consignment was made, and it was alleged that the intention of the accused was dishonest or fraudulent. In that circumstances, a complaint was filed u/s 420, IPC. Justice Mahendra Bnushan in that case, has observed that the powers of this court u/s 482, Cr.P.C, can be invoked even if the allegations in the complaint are taken at their face-value, and no offence prima facie is made out. It was further observed therein as under:- "It appears to be a case of civil nature of breach of contract and no criminal offence under section 420, or any provision of the Indian Penal Code is prima facte made out." 13. It was further observed therein as under:- "It appears to be a case of civil nature of breach of contract and no criminal offence under section 420, or any provision of the Indian Penal Code is prima facte made out." 13. In Kurdaram v. State of Rajasthan (1915 RLW 700) a complaint was filed by one Trilokchand against the petitioners as a counter-blast to the cases pending against him. Complaints were filed, and they were sent to police station for investigation by the Judicial Magistrate. Two challans were pending against the complainant. The learned Magistrate had not made any reference to the record of investigation made by the police on the complaint of Navranglal as sent to the police station, and cognisance taken by the learned Magistrate did not disclose application of mind. On these facts, it was observed by justice S. M. Jain as under:- In the facts and circumstances that appear in the present case, I do not see even a remotest possibility of the accused being convicted for the offence alleged against them, It is clear case of the abuse of the process of the court resulting in under harassment of the petitioners. To prosecute innocent persons in a case where there appears not even a remote chance of conviction is nothing but an abuse of the process of the court." 14. In Trilok Singh & others v. Satyadeo Tripathi ( AIR 1979 SC 850 ), the petition was u/s 482, Cr. P. C. In that case, the dispute between the parties, related to purchase of a truck by the complainant-respondent. A hire-purchase agreement was entered into in between the respondent and the finance corporation (accused-appellant). The loan was payable in monthly instalments. According to the agreement, on default of any one instalment, the financier had the right to terminate hire-purchase agreement even without notice and seize the truck. The complainant's case was that only a blank form was got signed by him. His further case was that on default of third instalment, the truck was forcibly seized and removed by the appellants. The respondent filed a compliant offences. After inquiry, the Magistrate directed issue of summons. The appellants moved an application u/s 482, Cr.P.C. In this case, it was observed by their Lordships of the Supreme Court as under : "Held : that the proceeding initiated was clearly an abuse of the process of the court. The respondent filed a compliant offences. After inquiry, the Magistrate directed issue of summons. The appellants moved an application u/s 482, Cr.P.C. In this case, it was observed by their Lordships of the Supreme Court as under : "Held : that the proceeding initiated was clearly an abuse of the process of the court. It was not a case where any process ought to have been directed to be issued against the accused (appellants). On the well-settled principles of law, It was a very suitable case where the criminal proceeding ought to have been quashed by the High Court in exercise of its Inherent power. The dispute raised by the respondent was purely of a civil nature even assuming the facts stated by him to be substantially correct." 15. In Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ramkishan Rastogi & others ( AIR 1983 SC 67 ) , their Lordships of the Supreme Court held as under : "Proceedings against an accused in the initial stages can be quashed only if on the face of the complaint or the papers accompanying the same, no offence is constituted. In other words the test is that asking" the allegations and the complaint as they are, without adding or subtracting anything, if no offence is made out then the High Court will be justified in quashing the proceedings in exercise of its powers u/s 482, Cr.P.C." 16. In J.P. Sharma v. Vinod Kumar Jain and others 1986 (3) SCC 67 ) , the Deputy Chief Controller of Imports & Exports (the appellants made a complaint u/s 120-B, IPC and Section 5 of Imports & Exports (Control) Act against the accused persons (respondents) on charges that they in criminal conspiracy with each other and also with other persons and illegally imported prohibited articles (beef-tallow) by entering into a contract with a non-existent foreign firm in order to facilitate the import under licence under circumstances which were not permissible The Matropolitan Magistrate took Cognisance and issued summons against the accused. But, the High Court quashed the complaint u/s 482, Cr.P.C. on the basis of a subsequent report of CBI which had not yet been proved and considered in the back-ground of the allegations made. But, the High Court quashed the complaint u/s 482, Cr.P.C. on the basis of a subsequent report of CBI which had not yet been proved and considered in the back-ground of the allegations made. In that case, it has been observed by their Lordships of the Supreme Court as under : "The High Court erred in quashing the criminal proceedings u/s 482, Cr.P.C. on an erroneous basis when on prima facie being satisfied the Metropolitan Magistrate had taken cognisance of the alleged offences. The question at this stage, is not whether there was any truth in the allegations made but it is whether on the basis of the allegations, a cognisable offence or offences had been alleged to have been committed, the facts subsequently found out to prove the truth or otherwise on the allegation is not a ground on the basis of which the complaint can be quashed. Taking all the allegations in the complaint to be true, without adding or subtracting anything, at this stage it can be said that a prima facie case for trial had been made out. That is the limit of the power to be exercised by the High Court u/s 482, Cr.P.C. The High Court in the instant case exceeded that jurisdiction." 17. In Pratibha Rani v. Suraj Kumar and others ( AIR 1985 SC 628 ) , The matter was with regard to a complaint constituting an offence u/s. 405/406, IPC. Therein, it has been observed as under : "Since the complaint prima facie disclosed an offence of criminal breach of trust, as defined in S. 405/406, the High Court was not justified in quashing the complaint u/s. 482 Cr.P.C." 18. In Haream Satpathy v. Tikamram Agarwala and others ( AIR 1978 SC 1568 ) , the Magistrate, after taking cognisanee of the offence and perusal of the record and having satisfied himself that there was prima facie ground for issuing process against certain persons, not mentioned in the police report, issued process against them. In Haream Satpathy v. Tikamram Agarwala and others ( AIR 1978 SC 1568 ) , the Magistrate, after taking cognisanee of the offence and perusal of the record and having satisfied himself that there was prima facie ground for issuing process against certain persons, not mentioned in the police report, issued process against them. In that case, it was observed as under : "The magistrate cannot be said to have exceeded the power vested in him under law." It was further observed in that case as under : "As the Magistrate is restricted to finding out whether there is a prima facie case or not for proceeding against the accused and cannot enter into a detailed discussion of the merits or demerits of the case and the scope of the revisional jurisdiction is very limited the High Court launch on a detailed and meticulous examination of the case on merits and set aside the order of Magistrate directing issue of process against certain persons." 19. In Vijay Kumar Gujaral v. Delhi Administration & anr. 1987 (I) Reports (Del) 221) , Justice Chawla relying on the judgment of Khecherusingh v. State of U.P. and another ( AIR 1982 SC 784 ) , In short reproduced therefrom as under : "We do not see any justification though we are not expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, for the order passed by the Id. Addl. Sessions Judge, Meerut in Cr. Rev. No-83/79 which was affirmed by the High Court of Allahabad by its order dated 7-5-1980, All that the Id. Magistrate had done was to issue summons to respondent No. 2 Satyavir Singh, If eventually the Id. Magistrate comes to the conclusion that no offence was made out against Satyavir Singh, it will be open to him to discharge or acquit him, as the case may be. But it is difficult to appreciate shy the order issuing "summons" to the accused should be quashed. We therefore, set aside the order passed by the Sessions Court and the High Court, restore that of the learned Special Judicial Magistrate First Class, Meerut, dated February 2, 1979, and remit the matter to the trial court for disposal in accordance with law." 20. After perusing the case-laws cited by the learned counsel for the parties, the position becomes very clear. After perusing the case-laws cited by the learned counsel for the parties, the position becomes very clear. Where there is no prima facie case made out against the accused persons in the complaint, and where there is a little chance of their being convicted on the complaint. The order of taking cognisance can be interfered with by the High Court u/s 482, Cr. P. C. This principle has not been disputed; and Hon'ble the Supreme Court has laid down the principle that u/s. 482 Cr. P. C. the High Court should not interfere where there is a prima facie case made out on a complaint. Apart from this, it has also been laid down by our own High Court also that in a matter of civil nature, no criminal proceeding should be initiated. When a civil suit is pending between the parties and on the same facts, a criminal complaint has been filed, then the criminal proceedings should not proceed, and in case, the court has taken cognisance in the criminal matter, that order of taking cognisance can be quashed on the ground that the matter is of civil nature. 21. Thus, keeping in view, the principles laid down in all the cases cited above, 1 have examined the complaints filed by Shiv Singh, in this case. It is not disputed that Shiv Singh filed two complaints against the petitioners, which were sent to police station u/s. 156 (3), Cr. P. C., for investigation-two FIRs, Nos. 79/84 & 80/84 were registered, and after investigation, the police submitted final reports, which were accepted by the Trial Magistrate. Therefore, a third complaint was lodged by Shiv Singh against the petitioners on the same facts with regard to which final reports had been accepted. So, on the same allegations, the third complaint was filed by Shiv Singh against the petitioners. Therefore, a third complaint was lodged by Shiv Singh against the petitioners on the same facts with regard to which final reports had been accepted. So, on the same allegations, the third complaint was filed by Shiv Singh against the petitioners. And, the learned Magistrate without keeping in mind the final reports, after recording statements of the complainant and his witnesses, took cognisance against the petitioners He did not consider that with regard to the same allegations, the previous complaints had been sent to police station for investigation and they had submitted final reports, which were accepted by the Magistrate, It is also on the record that with regard to these very lands and the agreements to sell alleging that they are forged ones, a revenue suit was filed; then a civil suit in the court of Munsif; and then a civil suit for specific performance as well as for declaring the agreements to sell as illegal, has been filed in the court of District Judge, Jaipur District, Jaipur. Thus, it is clear that with regard to the same documents, and with regard to these very lands, civil litigation is pending. Two civil suits-one in the court of Munsif,and the other in the District Court pending. So, the entire matter is of civil nature. The agreements to sell in favour of Harindrapal Singh have been challenged in the civil suit pending before the District Court. Similarly, the other agreements to sell are also under challenge. It has been prayed in the civil suit that the agreements to sell in favour of Harindrapal Singh are forged documents, prepared ante dated; and are void ab initio. All these allegations are in the criminal complaints. In the Civil suit, it would be decided whether the documents are forged ones or not. Thus, the matter is completely covered by the civil suits; and the matter is of civil nature. Under such circumstances, criminal proceedings taken simultaneously with regard to that very matter which is being tried in the civil court, should not be permitted. On this point, I have also gone through the complaints filed by Shiv Singh. There is no allegation that S. H. Joshi and Harindrapal Singh have committed any forgery. I have further perused the statements recorded u/ss. On this point, I have also gone through the complaints filed by Shiv Singh. There is no allegation that S. H. Joshi and Harindrapal Singh have committed any forgery. I have further perused the statements recorded u/ss. 200 & 202, Cr.P.C. by the learned Magistrate, and find that even a prima facie case is not made out against the petitioners, and the entire matter is of civil nature for which civil suits are pending. 22. Therefore, I am of the view that criminal proceedings should not be proceeded with in such matters. The order of taking cognisance against the petitioners is, therefore, not correct, and cannot be sustained. 23. In the result, both the miscellaneous petitions filed u/s. 482 Cr. P. C. (Nos. 31/86 and 710/86) are accepted; and the order of the learned ACJM No. 1, Jaipur City, Jaipur, dated 20th Nov., 85 and that of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Jaipur District, Jaipur dated 22nd September, 86 taking cognisance against the petitioners; are set aside, the proceedings in both the criminal cases, are hereby quashed.Mise Petition accepted. *******