JUDGMENT 1. - The petition is directed against the order of the learned Sessions Judge, Pratapgarh dated 30-5-1988 where by the learned Judge has taken cognizance against the accused-petitioners for the offence under Sections 384 and 347 Indian Penal Code. 2. Facts necesary to be noticed for the disposal of this petition briefly stated are that accused Undailal is a liquor contractor at village Badi in Sub-Division, Nimbaheda, District Chittorgarh. He was having a shop at village. Khara also. On 5-2-1986, a raid was made on his shop in village Khara and the liquor worth Rs. 36,000/- was seized by the Excise Party. The accused-petitioner Udailal and his brother thought this has been because of some information leaked out by complainant Lalchand and his brother Manoharlal. It is alleged that on 5-2-1986, Manoharlal went to village Katadi and from there he was called through one Manmal who is the Munim of accussed Udailal at Nimbaheda. There it is alleged that accused Sushilkumar Manmal and Devendran Kumar were sitting and they accused him of 'Gaddhari', gave beating to him and then he was confined in a room which was closed from out side. Later, it is alleged that on 6-2-1986, complainant Lalchand was also called there and he was told that his brother Manoharlal is there. It is further alleged that when complainant Udailal went to Nimbaheda at the house of accused Udailal an electric motor was brought and electric current was passed through his body in order to extract the sale-deed of his land from him as also for execution of a pro-note from him so that he may recoupe the loss of Rs. 36,000/- It is alleged that on 7-2-1986, the accused-persons took the complainant Lalchand with them and they purchased Stamps. They threatened him that at the time of excution of sale-deed before the Tehsildar, if he will speak, he will have to face dire consequences. How ever under this threat the accused petitioners got the sale deed of complainant Lalchand's land executed in their favour for a sum a Rs. 15,000/- along with the execution of a pronote for Rs. 21,000/- and thereby making goods the loss of Rs. 36,000/-suspected to have been caused on account of some information leaked out by Lalchand and Manoharlal. 3. 15,000/- along with the execution of a pronote for Rs. 21,000/- and thereby making goods the loss of Rs. 36,000/-suspected to have been caused on account of some information leaked out by Lalchand and Manoharlal. 3. It is alleged that the complainant Lalchand filed a complaint about this incident in the Court of Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Nimbaheda on 12-2-1986. A report about this incident was also lodged against the accused-person by Lalchand on 8-2-86 claiming that they have got a sale deed executed from Manoharlal which was not signed by Lalchand and so he was given a beating by them and he was in fear of his life from them and therefore procee, ding be taken against them. This complaint was how ever lodged on 12-2-1986 after the sale-deed and pro note were got forcibly executed by both of them in favour of the accused persons. Certain witnesses were examined and on the basis of the statements of these witnesses a case under Sections 347 and 384 Indian Penal Code was registered against the accused-petitioners. A revision was filed against this order of taking cognizance against the accused-petitioners before the learned Sessions Judge, Paitapgarh and the learned Sessions Judge vide his Order dated 30-5-1988 dismissed the revision petition. Hence this petition. 4. I have heard Mr. J.R. Patel, the learned Counsel appearing for the accused-petitioners and have carefully gone through the record of the case. 5. Mr. Patel, the learned Counsel appearing for the accused-petitioners has submitted that actually, it is a case of civil nature and therefore, taking recourse to the provisions of Criminal Procedure Code is not a proper remedy and, therefore, it amounts to an abuse of the process of the Court. In this respect, he, has placed reliance on a decision of the Delhi High Court in Jyoti Prasad and Anr. v. Ramavtar and Anr. (1984) (1) Crimes 57 wherein it has been held that a complaint in criminal court while the proceedings are pending in a civil court would be premature and even otherwise improper, particularly in the disputes involving the partnership business. 6. In this case the accused-persons suspected that the complainant and his brother might have informed the excise party about their illegal trade secrets. 6. In this case the accused-persons suspected that the complainant and his brother might have informed the excise party about their illegal trade secrets. They therefore called the complainant and his brother Manoharlal at Nimbaheda and kept them in confinement and forcibly obtained the sale deed of the land executed in their favour for a sum of Rs. 15,000/- and also obtained a pronote duly executed by them for a sum of Rs. 21, 000/-. Even if civil proceeding are initiated in such matters, that does not absolve the accused-persons of their criminal liability for forcibly obtaining from the complainant and his brother duly executed Sale deed of their land and a pro-note worth Rs 21,000/-. Thus it cannot be said that this is purely a matter of civil nature because the accused party got the sale deed and pronote executed without passing any consideration just on the ground that the complainant and his brother might have informed the Excise Officers to make a raid of their khara-shop. 7. Mr. Patel, the learned Counsel appearing for the accused-petitioners has further placed a reliance on a decision of the Bomby High Court in Bhivraj and Anr. v. Ravindra and Anr. (1987) (1) Crimes 173 , where in it has been held that criminal prosecution for disputes of a civil nature is an abuse of court's process and is thus liable to be quashed under Section 482, Cr.PC. That was a case of non-payment of instalments as per the Hire Purchase agreement. This is not a case of that type and, therefore, this authority has no application to the facts of present case. 8. Reliance was also placed on a decision of the Madhaya Pradesh High Court in Shital Singh v. Santosh Kumar Dubey (1988) Indian Judicial Report 207 wherein it was observed that initiation of criminal proceedings in a case which is of civil nature is an abuse of the process of law. 8. Reliance was also placed on a decision of the Madhaya Pradesh High Court in Shital Singh v. Santosh Kumar Dubey (1988) Indian Judicial Report 207 wherein it was observed that initiation of criminal proceedings in a case which is of civil nature is an abuse of the process of law. I have discussed the facts and circumstances of this case in detail above, which clearly show that the sale-deed of the land and the pro-note were obtained from complainant Lalchand and his brother Manoharlal by their employers accused Udailal and his companian by passing electric current through their body as also by beating them in order to recoupe the loss caused to them on account of the excise raid, for which, they suspected, that the complainant and his brother might have informed the Excise Officials to do so. If this is not a criminal offence then what else can be. Of course, the complaint was filed after 5 days in the Court but in the report that was lodged in the police on 8-2-1986 forcibly execution of the sale deed has been reported along with fact of use of force. Delay also stands amply explained keeping in view the relationship of accused Udailal with complainant Lalchand and his brother Manoharlal which is that of an employer and employees and, therefore, the delay by itself is not fatal in such case. 9. In the result, I find no force in this petition and it is here by dismissed.Petition Dismissed. *******