Judgment M.L.Singhal, J. 1. Vide order dated 14.1.97 passed in CrL. Misc. No. 11787-M of 1996, proceedings in criminal case FIR No. 172 dated 18.8.95 registered at PS Division No. 5, Ludhiana under Section 406, 419, 420, 468, 471, 120-B IPC were ordered to be stayed during the pendency of civil suit titled "Sucha Singh v. Daljit Singh and Ors.". It was ordered that criminal case shall remain stayed till the disposal of the civil suit. It will become revived if the findings on the relevant issues are returned by the civil court against the petitioner. 2. Facts:- Sucha Singh was owner of property/house measuring 554.58 sq. yards bearing No. B-XXI-14618 situated at GT Road, Dholewal, Ludhiana. He was also owner of land bearing Khasra No. 1933/420/2 situated in revenue estate of village Dholewal shown in jamabandi for the year 1984-85. He had executed valid registered will dated 31.3.89 in favour of his sons Ajmer Singh and Ajaib Singh bequeathing the property owned by him including the property in dispute. He is a retired District Foreman and he has visited many foreign countries. He always signed in English. He is conversant with other Indian languages. He purchased the aforesaid house vide sale deed dated 21.2.1996. His sons Amjer Singh and Ajaib Singh are settled in England. He has been going to England to see his sons and he resided with them many times. He has three daughters. One is Ajit Kaur wife of Capt. Lal Singh putting up at Chandigarh. Others are Kulwant Kaur and Nachhtar Kaur alias Satya putting up at Ludhiana. Two shops are on rent with Bha-jan Singh proprietor of M/s Motor Spare Parts, G.T. Road, Gandhi Nagar, Ludhiana and M/s New Agro Motor House through its proprietor Mr. Sharma and back portion towards the railway line is in the occupation of Daljit Singh and Satpal Singh as tenants. Daljit Singh and Satpal Singh used to pay rent @ 1500/- per mensum plus house tax to Sucha Singh. Other aforesaid tenants used to pay rent @ 600/- per month for the shops and Rs. 500/- per month rent for property No. 2045, Capt. Lal Singh Road in Gobind Nagar, Ludhiana. He was thus collecting rent to the tune of about Rs. 2600/- per month. In the years 1990, there was a marriage of the grand daughter of Sucha Singh in England. 500/- per month rent for property No. 2045, Capt. Lal Singh Road in Gobind Nagar, Ludhiana. He was thus collecting rent to the tune of about Rs. 2600/- per month. In the years 1990, there was a marriage of the grand daughter of Sucha Singh in England. Sucha Singh attended that marriage and resided some time with his sons. Nachhtar Kaur also attended that marriage. Nachhtar Kaur requested him to reside with her some time in India and look after the property. It was orally settled between the families that out of the rent received by him, she will keep Rs. 1000/- for the maintenance of Sucha Singh. Rs. 1500/- - 1600/- will be deposited in his account. On this offer, Sucha Singh came to India with the consent of his sons and started residing at 1643, GT Road, Gandhi Nagar, Ludhiana. In the year 1991, Sucha Singh fell ill and remained under treatment of various doctors. He remained most under the confinement of his daughter Nachhtar Kaur alias Satya, Surjit Singh and Balwinder Singh Lambardar. They did not want that he should move freely and communicate with his sons and other relations. Surjit Singh and Nachhtar Kaur did not reply to the letters of Amjer Singh and Ajaib Singh, the sons of Sucha Singh. They did not even respond to their telephone calls from England. In the month of December, 1994, some near relations informed Ajmer Singh and Ajaib Singh in England that Surjit Singh and Nachhtar Kaur are playing with the property of Sucha Singh and also that Sucha Singh was in bad health. Thereupon, Ajmer Singh and Ajaib Singh rushed to India and contacted Satpal Singh and Nachhtar Kaur who refused to tell them the whereabouts of Sucha Singh. Sucha Singh came to know that Satpal Singh and Daljit Singh had forged the sale deeds relating to Sucha Singhs property/plot situate at GT Road, Gandhi Nagar opposite Dholewal, Ludhiana. Approximate market value of this property was Rs. 30 lacs. Sucha Singh was deprived of this valuable property by fraudulent act of Satpal Singh, Daljit Singh etc. On an application made by Ajmer Singh and Ajaib Singh sons of Sucha Singh to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ludhiana to this effect, case FIR No. 172 dated 18.8.95 was registered at PS Division No. 5, Ludhiana under section 406/419/420/468/471/120-B IPC. Vide Crl. Misc. On an application made by Ajmer Singh and Ajaib Singh sons of Sucha Singh to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ludhiana to this effect, case FIR No. 172 dated 18.8.95 was registered at PS Division No. 5, Ludhiana under section 406/419/420/468/471/120-B IPC. Vide Crl. Misc. No. 11787-M of 1996 filed by Satpal Singh and Daljit Singh sons of Gurbax Singh, they have prayed that the aforesaid FIR registred against them be quashed. It was averred by them that they were bona fide purchasers for consideration. Payment was made by pay orders "not transferable" and the amount was duly credited into the bank account of Sucha Singh. Sucha Singh duly executed the sale deeds and got them registered. Mutation was duly entered in the record and the relevant were duly made in the record of Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana. They have been duly assessed for house tax and they are paying house tax to Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana. Sale deeds were executed and registered in the years 1991 and the FIR was lodged on 18.8.1995. There is no explanation for this inordinate delay in the lodging of the FIR. On the same facts, civil suit titled Sucha Singh v. Daljit Singh and Ors. has been filed in the court of Senior Sub Judge, Ludhiana for declaration to the effect that he (Sucha Singh) is owner of the property and the sale deed in respect of property No. 1933/420/2 as shown in the jamabandi for the year 1984-85 of village Dholewal dated 10.10.1991 registered on 31.10.1991 vide Vasika No. 17227 in favour of Daljit Singh and the sale deed dated 10.10.1991 registered on 31.10.1991 vide Vasika No. 14751 in favour of Satpal Singh regarding House No. B-XXI/14618 are illegal, null and void, without consideration and an act of fraud, conferring no right on them and the said civil suit is pending in the court of Sub Judge Ist Class, Ludhiana and sales are not binding upon Sucha Singh. Copy of the plaint is Annexure PL Sucha Singh died on 13.6.1995. It is further averred that there is family dispute between Ajmer Singh. Ajaib Singh, sons of Sucha Singh and their sister Nachhtar Kaur @ Satya and her husband Surjit Singh, their sons and their widowed daughter Rani in respect of the accounts in respect of the rent (monies) and the sale proceeds of the property sold. As such, this FIR is not bona fide. Ajaib Singh, sons of Sucha Singh and their sister Nachhtar Kaur @ Satya and her husband Surjit Singh, their sons and their widowed daughter Rani in respect of the accounts in respect of the rent (monies) and the sale proceeds of the property sold. As such, this FIR is not bona fide. During the hey days of militancy in Punjab in the year 1983 to 1992, there was no buyer for property in then State of Punjab and people were selling their property in the State of Punjab and going outside the State of Punjab to buy property. In the civil suit, the subject matter is the two sale deeds and the same property. Decree by the civil court will be binding on the criminal court. On the same facts continuation of the criminal prosecution would be an abuse of the process of the court. 3. State of Punjab had put in written statement opposing this prayer urging that Satpal Singh and Daljit Singh along with other accused had joined in criminal conspiracy to sell the property owned by Sucha Singh and the sale deeds were registered in the names of the petitioners the same day, i.e. on 10.10.1991 for the consideration of Rs. 1.81 lacs each. Petitioners and other accused in connivance with each other opened a bank account in the name of Sucha Singh and after depositing the pay order, withdrew the said amount by account payee cheque in the account of Surjit Singh accused. It was denied that Sucha Singh executed any sale deed in favour of the petitioners or received any amount. Ajmer Singh and Ajaib Singh came to India in December 1994 when they came to know about the aforesaid conspiracy and then they lodged FIR in 1995. There is thus no delay in lodging the FIR. Fraud was committed by Nachhtar Kaur @ Satya daughter of Sucha Singh in connivance with her husband Surjit Singh and her sons Paramjit Singh and Avtar Singh and her daughter Kamaljit Kaur, petitioners and Balwinder Singh. All the accused forged the sale deeds on behalf of Sucha Singh and deprived him of the huge amount. Challan was put in the court on 13.6.1996 after the completion of investigation. Case was fixed for 15.11.1996 for framing of charge against all the accused. Court is seized of the matter and there is no question of quashing the FIR. 4. Challan was put in the court on 13.6.1996 after the completion of investigation. Case was fixed for 15.11.1996 for framing of charge against all the accused. Court is seized of the matter and there is no question of quashing the FIR. 4. Now Ajmer Singh son of Sucha Singh has made this application (Crl. Misc. No. 941-M of 2000) whereby he has prayed the modification of the order dated 14.1.1997 passed in Crl. Misc. 11787 of 1996 (ibid) and for direction that there shall be no stay so far as criminal case is concerned and criminal case can go side by side with the civil case. 5. It has been alleged in this Crl. Misc. No. 941-M of 2000 filed by Ajmer Singh that during investigation, the police recorded the statement of Shri Birinder Singh son of Tarlochan Singh and Hardial Singh son of Gurdev Singh, residents of Ludhiana who signed as witnesses to account opening form in the Oriental Bank of Commerce, Sarabha Nagar, Ludhiana of account in the name of Sucha Singh. In their statements, they stated that Sucha Singh was not present at that time and they had not known him and they signed the account opening form as witnesses on the asking of Paramjit Singh son of Surjit Singh. Hardial Singh stated that he had not signed the account opening form and his signatures had been forged by Paramjit Singh. Hardial Singh son of Naurang Singh and Jagdish Singh Lambardar sons of Lachhman Singh who were witnesses to the alleged sale deed have stated that Sucha Singh had not signed in their presence and they did not know him. Sucha Singh had also stated that he had been defrauded and he had not sold his properties nor had executed any sale deed. During investigation, it clearly stood made out that Sucha Singh had been defrauded and some other person had impresonated him and the accused are liable for prosecution. 6. Notice of this Crl. Misc. petition was given to Satpal Singh and Daljit Singh. Despite service they have not turned up. They were, therefore, proceeded exparte. 7. Ajmer Singh appeared before me in person and made oral submission. He put in written submissions also. It was submitted by him that criminal case should not be stayed during the pendency of the civil case because in the civil case the prayer is for restoration of the properties. They were, therefore, proceeded exparte. 7. Ajmer Singh appeared before me in person and made oral submission. He put in written submissions also. It was submitted by him that criminal case should not be stayed during the pendency of the civil case because in the civil case the prayer is for restoration of the properties. In the criminal case, the prayer is for punishing the accused for acts of cheating, impersonation, forgery committed in conspiracy with each other. In the civil case, the prayer is that Sucha Singh is owner of the property/house measuring 554.58 sq. yards bearing No. B-XXI-14618 situated at GT Road, Dholewal, Ludhiana and also bearing khasra No. 1933/420/2 as shown in the jamabandi for the year 1984-85 of village Dholewal and the sale deeds allegedly executed by him dated 10.10.1991 are illegal, null and void without consideration and an act of fraud conferring no right on them and are not binding upon him and to set aside the said sale deeds and consequential relief and for possession as owner of the said properties in consequence of the grant of the said declaration. His further prayer is for direction to Daljit Singh, Satpal Singh, Bhajan Singh proprietor of M/s Motor Spare Parts and M/s New Agro Motor House, GT Road, Ludhiana to pay rent to the plaintiff (Sucha Singh as owner). It was submitted that the scope of the civil case and the criminal case is different. It was also submitted that in criminal Misc. No. 11787-M for 1996, Satpal Singh and Daljit Singh did not act bona fide in as much as they did not implead him or his brother Ajaib Singh as party. No notice was given to them and the order sought to be reviewed was procured by them through misrepresentation and suppression of facts. 8. In Rattan Singh and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors., (1995-1)109 P.L.R. 274, which was relied upon while staying the proceedings, the facts were as follows:- "Vide agreement dated 11.11.1992, owners of SCO No. 49, Sector 8, Panchkula namely Narender Kumar, Rajni Kawatra had agreed to sell the same in favour of the petitioners and an amount of Rs. 8.35 lacs had been paid in cash. There was a date stipulated in the agreement for execution of the sale deed. 8.35 lacs had been paid in cash. There was a date stipulated in the agreement for execution of the sale deed. In as much as the sale deed could not be executed upto the stipulated date and other agreement came to be executed on 8.1.1993 vide which the petitioners paid an amount of Rs. 5.10 lacs. The allegations made in the petition went on to reveal that later in point of time owners sold this property to Smt. Kailash Rani, who, later, in turn lodged the FIR in question alleging therein that she was in possession in consequence of sale made in her favour and that the documents prepared by the petitioners were forged. It was admitted position that the petitioners had already filed civil suit staking their claim with regard to that property wherein they had also moved an application for the grant of stay and the civil court had already granted ad-interim injunction in their favour and the civil suit was pending. Smt. Kailash Rani wife of respondent No. 2 there had also filed civil suit which was, however, later on, withdrawn." It was held that the civil court was seized of the matter and obviously one of the issues to be determined by the civil court was as to whether the documents relied upon by the petitioners were forged or not. The findings of the civil court would be binding on the criminal court, that being so, it would be an exercise in futility to continue with the trial as its necessity may not arise if civil court determines the crucial issues with regard to genuineness of sale agreements in favour of the petitioners." 9. Since the questions confronting the civil court in civil suit "Sucha Singh v. Daljit Singh etc." are almost the same which are confronting the criminal court in case FIR No. 172 dated 18.8.95 (ibid), it will be proper if both the cases are decided together by the same court the same day because if the civil court finds that the sales were for consideration effected by Sucha Singh of his free will and volition and that he had duly received the sale consideration and had signed the sale dees, the criminal case will fall to the ground. If the findings of the civil court are returned in favour of Satpal Singh, Daljit Singh, etc., the continuation of criminal case will be an exercise in futility. It is therefore, ordered that criminal case shall go hand in hand with the civil case. Both these cases shall be decided by the same court the same day. If for one reason or the other the civil suit is withdrawn, then the criminal case will remain alive and shall be proceeded with and decided. 10. Learned District Judge, Ludhiana shall transfer the civil suit from the court where it is pending now to the court where case FIR No. 172 dated 18.8.95 of SP Division No. 5, Ludhiana is pending so that both the cases are decided together by the same court the same day. Concerned court will try to dispose of both the cases as early as possible. With this modification in the order dated 14.1.1997 passed in Crl. Misc. No. 11787-M of 1996, this Crl. Mist. No. 941-M of 2000 is disposed of. There shall now be no stay on the trial of the criminal case.