JUDGMENT Viney Mittal, J. (Oral) - The present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed for quashing the order dated March 30, 1991 and the ordder dated April 18, 1992 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Mohindergarh and the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Narnaul respectively. 2. A complaint under Sections 342/347 of the Indian Penal Code was filed by the complainant-respondent, Ram Chander. It was alleged by him in the complaint that on June 25, 1989 the present petitioner, Manohar Lal had taken the complainant to his house and gave some intoxicated contents and in that condition, obtained his thumb impression on few papers, viz pronote and receipt. On that basis, the complaint in question was filed. 3. It will be relevant to point out here that on the basis of the pronote and receipt, a civil suit for recovery of Rs. 12,000/- was filed by the present petitioner against the complainant. Vide judgment and decree dated February 22, 1992, the learned trial Court decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff (present petitioner). It may be pertinent to notice here that even in the aforesaid civil suit, the present complainant-respondent, who was a defendant in the suit, filed a written statement contesting the claim of the plaintiff and took up a similar plea that in fact, the thumb impression had been obtained by the plaintiff on blank papers on June 25, 1989 while administering some intoxication to the defendant. The aforesaid plea raised by the defendant in that suit was negatived and the suit of the plaintiff was decreed. 4. An appeal was filed by the aforesaid defendant before the learned first appellate Court. Vide judgment and decree dated October 14, 1999, the learned first appellate Court affirmed the findings of the learned trial Court and defence of the defendant was again rejected. The said judgments of the leraned Courts below were still confirmed by this Court in the regular second appeal filed by the aforesaid defendant. 5. Accordingly, on the basis of the findings recorded by the learned Civil Courts in the said litigation, petitioner Manohar Lal has filed the present petition for quashing of the order dated March 30, 1991 and the order dated April 18, 1992. 6. 5. Accordingly, on the basis of the findings recorded by the learned Civil Courts in the said litigation, petitioner Manohar Lal has filed the present petition for quashing of the order dated March 30, 1991 and the order dated April 18, 1992. 6. I have heard Mr Vaneet Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and with his assistance have also gone through the record of the case. 7. In my considered view, the present petition deserves to succeed, when the defence raised by the respondent (which is identical with the allegations made in the present complaint) has already been adjudicated upon by the civil court and the aforesaid defence has been rejected by the civil Court and the matter has attained finally even upto this Court, then the said matter could not be allowed to be adjudicated upon all over again in the criminal proceedings. Accordingly, the complaint dated June 27, 1989 filed by the respondent Ram Chander under Sections 342/347, the order dated March 30, 1991 (Annexure P-1) and the order dated April 18, 1992 (Annexure P-2) are hereby quashed. Disposed of accordingly. Petition allowed.