JUDGMENT 1. - This is a petition under Section 482 Cr. P C. wherein a prayer has been made for quashing the proceedings pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Jaipur City, Jaipur in criminal complaint No 24/85, 2. Brief facts giving rise to this petition are that one Hari Narain son of Kajor Singh filed a criminal complaint in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No 2. Jaipur on 30-9-1985 against the petitioners for offences under Sections 419, 420, 406. 120-B, 467, 468 and 471 IPC. The concerned Magistrate forwarded the complaint to Police Station for investigation under Sec 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Police registered a case for various offences and recorded the first information report No. 276/85. After investigating the case police filed a final report in the Court and directed the complainant to produce the evidence, if he wanted to do so. The complainant examined himself on 27th October, 1986 and the learned Magistrate on the basis of the statement of complainant took cognizance on 29th October, 1986. Against the said order the petitioner filed a revision petition which was rejected by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur. Hence, this petition. 3. The offence alleged against the accused-petitioners was that one Ram Ratan Singh had expired long back but impersonating for him the petitioner got the documents registered before the Registrar of Documents showing some other person to be Ram Ratan Singh. This registration was done on 27-9-1967 and it is for this act that the present complaint had been filed on 30th September, 1985 as mentioned above. 4. It is contended that entertaining a complaint after 17 years of an occurrence is clearly an abuse of the process of the Court and Court should not be made a party for wrecking personal vengeance through the process of Criminal Courts. It is submitted that it is now settled that criminal cases should not be permitted to go for long so that the accused can be harassed. It is submitted that it is now settled that criminal cases should not be permitted to go for long so that the accused can be harassed. Learned counsel, in this respect places reliance on Ashwani Kumar v. State 1987 RCC 300 wherein besides the aforesaid point it is held that when a civil court is seized of a dispute in respect of certain documents the criminal court should not entertain the complaint unless it is filed by the Court after the civil proceedings are over as it is submitted that in the instant case also the complainant had filed a suit prior to filing this complaint. Reliance is then placed on observations made in Rakesh Sexena v. State through CBI (1987(1) Crimes 100) and Moti Singh alias Moti Lal and others v. State of Raj and another ( 1988(1) Crimes 677 ) . to the latter two cases the proceeding have been quashed because of long delay. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that cheating by impersonation in respect of registration of a document is a serious offence where the proceedings should not be quashed. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the entire record. 7. It is pertinent to mention here that occurrence relates to year 1967 in a suit which was filed by the complainant in the Court of District Judge, Jaipur District, Jaipur on 24-1-1985. In this suit in para No. 4 a mention about impersonation is there and it is categorically mentioned therein that on 17-9-67 when the document was registered Ram Ratan was not alive but late Bhoor Singh Ram Cbaran Singh and Suraj Singh who are accused in this case also got a document registered by producing somebody else for Ram Ratan Singh and thus there was cheating by impersonation and the forgery of document. It is after eight months of this institution of the suit that the criminal complaint came to be filed. In this complaint para No. 8 is relevant. In para No. 8 it has been mentioned that cause of delay is that accused persons had assured the complainant that they will give him ⅕ share of the sale proceed which is with them and since they have refused to return it on 28-9-85 hence the complaint is filed. In this complaint para No. 8 is relevant. In para No. 8 it has been mentioned that cause of delay is that accused persons had assured the complainant that they will give him ⅕ share of the sale proceed which is with them and since they have refused to return it on 28-9-85 hence the complaint is filed. This paragraph clearly means since the money is not returned and civil suit is not compromised this complaint has been instituted. In a criminal case where a civil suit has already been filed and controversies have been raised, it behoves the court to see at that point of there as to what was the cause of delay and why it has been filed. Criminal court cannot be made an instrument for getting the civil matters compromised After filing a criminal complaint after 18 years in a matter where the complainant has failed to get the matter settled out side, is clearly an abuse of the process of the Court Besides this, the present case is fully covered by the decision of Honble G.K. Sharma J. in Ashwini Kumar v. State (supra). Since I am in agreement with the aforesaid case and wherein brother G.K. Sharma J. has dealt with the law in details, I need not make this judgment lengthy. Endorsing the. view, I am of the opinion that in the present case the continuation of the criminal proceedings is nothing but an abuse of the process of the Court and the order taking cognizance deserves to be quashed. 8. As a result of the aforesaid discussions, this misc. petition is allowed, the orders of the Additional Sessions Judge dated 19 7-88 and that of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate No 1, Jaipur City dated 29-10-88 are set aside and the entire proceedings are quashed.Petition allowed. *******