Judgment 1. A perusal of the FIR shows that clear allegations have been made against the petitioner that he has prepared a forged agreement to sell and has forged the signatures of the complainant on it. It is further alleged that a sum of Rs. 1,40,000/- has been shown to have been received by the complainant as earnest money. The date of registry has already been fixed as 30-10-1998. The petitioner even filed a case for sanctioning girdawari in his name in the Court of Assistant Collector, Rajpura on 6-2-2000. The next date for the aforesaid case was fixed on 18-7-2000. It is only then that the complainant came to know that the petitioners will get the girdawari sanctioned in their names in connivance with the department. It is stated that the complainants are very poor persons and have no other land except this land. The mother of the complainants had inherited a meagre area of 3 bighas and 15 biswas of land in village Madanpur. The complainant states that he is unable to do any work. The arm of this son has been amputated and he cannot do any work. It is further stated that the complainant has no other source of income except this land. 2. On the basis of the aforesaid allegations, the Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala had rejected the anticipatory bail application of the petitioners. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the Additional Sessions Judge has dismissed the application for grant of anticipatory bail only on the sole ground that the original agreement is yet to be recovered. The perusal of the order, however, shows that the application for anticipatory bail has been rejected on a number of grounds. One of the contentions put forward by the P.P.was that the original agreement is yet to be recovered. It was also submitted by the P.P.that the possibility of the concession of pre-arrest bail being mis-used to dissuade the complainant from going ahead with the prosecution of the case cannot be ruled out. 4. In my view, the Additional Sessions Judge has rejected the application on very cogent grounds. Apart from this, I am of the opinion that mere filing of a civil suit would not debar the criminal process from being set in motion. 4. In my view, the Additional Sessions Judge has rejected the application on very cogent grounds. Apart from this, I am of the opinion that mere filing of a civil suit would not debar the criminal process from being set in motion. If that were the law, it would be easy to forestall criminal liability by filing civil proceedings and then taking the plea that the matter is pending in the civil Court. There can be no embargo on initiating criminal proceedings merely because civil proceedings are pending. Each case would have to be examined on its own facts. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that even the complainant has filed a suit for permanent injunction against the petitioners. He further submits that the two petitioners are only attesting witnesses. He also submits that the original document is already on the file of the civil Court. However, I am not satisfied on the facts in the present case that the petitioners deserve anticipatory bail. Merely because the original document is on record of the civil Court is no ground for interfering with the investigation of the offence which is allegedly commited by the petitioners. Prima facie, it appears that if the allegations in the FIR are correct, the petitioners have tried to cheat persons who undoubtedly belong to the weaker sections of the society. The only small area of land which is in their possession is sought to be taken away in connivance with the revenue authority. All these matters are yet to be investigated. In these circumstances, it would not be proper to exercise the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 438, Cr. P.C.and to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. 5. In view of the above, this petition is dismissed. However, it is made clear that the observations made above shall not be taken into consideration subsequently, if the petitioners are sent for trial.