JUDGMENT - CHANDRASHEKHARA DAS T.K., J.:---This writ petition is filed for quashing the proceedings initiated against petitioners on the basis of the complaint made by the respondents before Civil Judge, J.M.F.C. at Ulhasnagar being Criminal Case No. 769 of 1976. 2. According to the complaint of respondent, petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 are brothers, they are carrying on business under the name and style of M/s. Pravin Stores, near Mutton Market, on Kalyan/Ambernath Road, Ulhasnagar 3, they are also having business of retail selling of wine, biscuits, confectionery etc. According to the complainant they made him believe that they have got distribution rights of the Britania Bread, Cadhbury Fry and Kissan Products and they have also represented to the respondents that they were thinking of transferring the agencies of Britania Breads, Cadhbury Fry and Kissan Products. They were prepared to transfer their agencies if the respondents advances loan of Rs. 60,000/- to Rs. 70,000/- for which they are willing to pay the interest. Accordingly respondents have advanced the amount of Rs. 60,000/- and as per the agreement between the parties, five post dated cheques amounting to Rs. 99,000/- have been issued by the petitioners in favour of the respondents. The allegation in the complaint is that they have violated this agreement and did not honour the cheques. With these allegations, respondent filed complaint before the Magistrate, and the learned Magistrate issued process against the petitioner on 10-2-1976 taking cognizance of offence punishable under sections 406 and 420 of Indian Penal Code read with section 34 and issued warrant. 3. It is the contention of the petitioner before this Court that during the trial the respondents tried to produce certain agreement alleged to have been executed between the petitioner and respondents and objection was raised on behalf of the petitioner that those documents were liable to be impugned under the provisions of the Stamp Act. On the basis of this objection no order has been passed by the learned Magistrate and the matter lingered indefinitely. In the meantime, suit has been filed by the respondent against the petitioners before Civil Judge, Sr. Division, Thane as Special Civil Suit No. 631 of 1988 and the said suit is pending. 4. Two contentions have been raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner Shri Agarwal in this case. In the meantime, suit has been filed by the respondent against the petitioners before Civil Judge, Sr. Division, Thane as Special Civil Suit No. 631 of 1988 and the said suit is pending. 4. Two contentions have been raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner Shri Agarwal in this case. First is that the indefinite adjournment of the criminal case without passing any order on the objection raised by the petitioners before the Magistrate about admissibility of the documents produced by the respondent. According to him, it is a clear instance of abuse of process of the Court. According to him indefinite adjournment or incorrigible indecision on the part of the learned trial Magistrate is a sufficient ground to interfere by this Court and set aside the proceeding under section 482 being abusive process of law. 5. The next contention is that when the respondent has approached the Civil Court for adjudication of genuine civil dispute pending between the parties which arose out of the same transaction and having a single cause of action, the criminal proceeding against the rival parties is not maintainable. He has fortified this argument by a the decision of the Supreme Court reported in A.I.R. 1979 S.C. 850 in (Trilok Singh and others v. Satya Deo Tripathi)1. In that case a vehicle under hire purchase was seized by the owner of the vehicle. That the hire purchaser defaulted the payment of instalment as agreed in the hire purchase agreement and defaulted purchaser has approached the Criminal Court for prosecuting the owner of the vehicle for having seized the vehicle on the allegation that seizure of vehicle was illegal. At the same time a civil suit is pending between the parties on the same score. The Supreme Court in that case has held that when a genuine civil dispute is pending between the parties, for the same transaction and on the same cause of action, no independent criminal proceeding would be maintainable. The Supreme Court in paragraph 5 of that judgment had held thus: "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. The dispute raised by the respondent was purely of a civil nature even assuming the facts stated by him to be substantially correct. Money must have been advanced to him and his partner by the financier on the basis of some terms settled between the parties. Even assuming that the agreement entered on 29th March, 1973 was duly filled up and the signature of the complainant was obtained on a blank form, it is to be noticed that the amount of the two monthly instalments admittedly paid by him was to the tune of Rs. 3,566 exactly @ Rs. 1,783 per month. ........... The question as to what were the terms of the settlement and whether they were duly incorporated in the printed agreement or not were all questions which could be properly and adequately decided in a Civil Court. Obtaining signature of a person on blank sheet of paper by itself is not an offence of forgery or the like. It becomes an offence when the paper is fabricated into a document of the kind which attracts the relevant provisions of the Penal Code making it an offence or when such a document is used as a genuine document......... It was therefore, a bona fide civil dispute which led to the seizure of the truck. On the face of the complaint petition itself the highly exaggerated version given by the respondent that the appellants went to his house with a mob armed with deadly weapons and committed the offence of dacoity in taking away the truck was so very unnatural and untrustworthy that it could not take the matter out of the realm of civil dispute. Nobody on the side of the respondent was hurt. Even a scratch was not given to anybody." 6. In view of the above decision, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, Shri Agarwal submitted that the proceedings pending against the petitioner in the Civil Judge, J.M.F.C. Ulhasnagar is liable to be quashed. 7. Mr. Agarwal has brought to my notice another peculiar circumstance of this case that during the pendency of the proceeding before this Court, the respondent died on 22-2-1993. Had this proceeding not been pending before this Court. Mr. Agarwal submits, that by the virtue of section 256 of Criminal Procedure Code the complaint of the respondent would have been dismissed by the Magistrate. Had this proceeding not been pending before this Court. Mr. Agarwal submits, that by the virtue of section 256 of Criminal Procedure Code the complaint of the respondent would have been dismissed by the Magistrate. But he submits that by way of abundant precaution, on the death of respondent, he impleaded the legal representatives of the deceased respondent before this Court and even though notice was served on the legal heirs of the respondent, they have not chosen to appear before this Court and prosecute this matter. Before this Court those respondents are not represented by Counsel nor they appeared in person. 8. On the particular circumstances of this case enumerated above, particularly in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court (supra), I find that there is no justification of continuing the criminal proceeding against the petitioners before the Magistrate. As indicated above, both on facts and in law, the proceedings pending against the petitioner before the trial Court is liable to be quashed. I do so. 9. In the result, writ petition is allowed. The proceedings pending against the petitioners in Criminal Case No. 769 of 1976 on the file of Civil Judge, J.M.F.C. Ulhasnagar is quashed. Rule is made absolute accordingly with no orders as to costs. Petition allowed. -----