JUDGMENT P. K. TRIPATHY, J. — Petitioners are the accused persons in G. R. Case No. 1014 of 1999 in the Court of S.D.J.M., Berhampur and the opposite party No. 2 is the informant whereas the opposite party No-1- State of Orissa is the prosecutor. 2. On 16.2.2000, learned S.D.J.M., Berhampur after perusal of the case diary took cognizance of the offence punishable under Secs. 467/468/471/34, I.P.C. which is under challenge in this application under Sec. 482, Cr. P.C. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that peti¬tioner No. 1 Aswini Kumar Padhy is a co-sharer/co-parcener of the informant/complainant-Kishore Chandra Padhy and the subject matter of dispute i.e., the family property is presently the subject matter of a suit for participation vide T.S. No. 130 of 1999, wherein the alleged ‘Will’ said to have been forged is the subject matter of consideration for its acceptance as the defence plea of the petitioners in their written statement. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that when the said Will is pending for the scrutiny of the Civil Court on the question of genuineness or forgery, a criminal trial on the allegation of forgery of that Will need not be undertaken because the dispute is purely civil in nature. Accordingly, he prays to quash the order of cognizance and also the criminal proceeding i.e., G. R. Case No. 1014 of 1999. 5. Learned Standing Counsel argues that merely because of pendency of the civil proceeding the criminal liability of the petitioners on the allegation of forgery cannot be terminated without due trial. Accordingly, he opposes to the prayer advanced by the petitioners. 6. Learned counsel for opposite party No. 2 does not appear to participate in the proceeding or to contest the afore¬said contention. 7. Accordingly, he opposes to the prayer advanced by the petitioners. 6. Learned counsel for opposite party No. 2 does not appear to participate in the proceeding or to contest the afore¬said contention. 7. On considering the aforesaid facts and submission, this Court finds that though the allegation about the alleged forgery is liable to be tried by the Criminal Court but keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case the trial in G. R. case No. 1014 of 1999 should be kept in abeyance till disposal of the civil proceeding in the Court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), inasmuch as if the said Will shall be tendered in evidence by the accused persons or any of them and if the Civil Court shall record a finding believing on its genuineness or forgery that will have a binding guiding factor relating to the said allegation. In the event the Civil Court shall record a finding that the said Will is a forged document and notwithstand¬ing that it is was produced or given in evidence then it shall be open to that Court to institute a complaint in accordance with the provision in Clause (b) of Sub-sec. (1) of Sec. 195, Cr. P.C. Because of such possibility it will be against the interest of justice to direct the accused to face the trial during the pend¬ency of the civil proceeding inasmuch that may lead to double jeopardy in the event of institution of a complaint by the Civil Court. Apart from that another factor is to be considered regard¬ing conflicting decisions, which possibility cannot be ruled out. To elaborate the same, it may be indicated that if at the conclu¬sion of the trial in the aforesaid criminal proceeding (G. R. Case) accused gets an order of acquittal because of prosecution’s failure to prove the charge beyond all reasonable doubts or otherwise and thereafter, as noted above, a finding shall be recorded by the Civil Court regarding forgery and in that respect a complaint shall be filed, then the Magistrate shall have to undertake another trial for the self same allegations and may have to record a finding which may be conflicting to the findings recorded in the criminal case. The provision in the Code has not provided any procedure to take care of such a situation. The provision in the Code has not provided any procedure to take care of such a situation. It may be indicated that in such cases, inherent power can be invoked to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court and also to secure the equity i.e., the ends of justice. 8. A hypothetical question that emerges in the above con¬text is that if the Civil Court shall not institute a complaint then what remedy is available to the complainant inasmuch as in spite of a charge-sheet having been filed against the accused persons they escape the trial, though temporarily, because of pendency of the civil proceeding. That problem is not of great difficulty and such a situation is not without any remedy. Keep¬ing in view such possibility this Court should pass such order which shall maintain a balance of the rival situation so that justice shall be done to the parties lawfully properly and equal¬ly. 9. After a due consideration of the contention of the parties and due analysis of the aforesaid facts and circumstances besides the provision of law, this Court directs that trial of G.R. Case No. 1014 of 1999 shall be deferred until disposal of the Title Suit No. 130 of 1999 in the Court of Civil Judge (S.D.), Berhampur. In view of the above direction, it is desira¬ble that disposal of the civil proceeding should be expedited. On that respect, petitioners have no objection. Hence it is directed that the Civil Judge (S.D.) shall do well to expedite the dispos¬al of the suit as early as possible and preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Learned Civil Judge (S.D.) shall further do well by inti¬mating to the S.D.J.M. regarding disposal of the civil suit along with any other information which he shall consider relevant or necessary. 10. It is further directed that the accused petitioners shall keep in attending the Criminal Court all through out not¬withstanding deferring of the trial in the aforesaid manner. After disposal of the civil proceeding, learned S.D.J.M. shall take up the G. R. Case and dispose of the case in accordance with law. The Criminal Misc. Case is disposed of accordingly. Crl. Misc. Case disposed of.