JUDGMENT This order shall govern the disposal of this petition as well as M.Cr.C. No. 6828/02 (Smt. Harjinder Kaur Chukkal v. Gurubaksh and another), as they arise out of the same order and have been filed for quashing the proceedings in the same Criminal Case No. 599/02, pending in the Court of J.M.F.C., Jabalpur. Facts leading to the filing of the petition succinctly narrated are thus:- (i) Gurubaksh Singh and Jeet Singh, the respondents in both the petitions filed a complaint before J.M.F.C., Jabalpur, stating inter alia that they are permanent residents of Canada. Their another brother Ratan Singh also resides at Canada. All the three brothers migrated to Canada about 30 years ago. Earlier they were residents of Jabalpur. Their fore-father Sardar Jagat Singh had acquired certain property at Jabalpur. After his death, the property devolved on his three sons i.e. complainants and Ratan Singh. Their names were also mutated in the revenue records. (ii) Petitioner of M.Cr.C. No. 6828/02, Smt. Harjinder Kaur, is the sister-in-law of Ratan Singh. Ratan Singh executed a power of attorney for his property in her favour on 25.8.1997. This power of attorney did not authorize her to sale, lease or let out any property that Ratan Singh had in India. Complainants and Ratan Singh had purchased the land situated at village Maheshpur by registered sale deed dated 23.3.1969 and constructed a house thereon. It was numbered as 1270A Madan Mahal Ward, Jabalpur. Smt. Harjinder Kaur (petitioner of M.Cr.C. No. 6828/02) sold this house with open land adjoining to it owned by complainants and Ratan Singh through registered sale deed dated 3.10.1998 to Harendra Jeet Singh (Babbu) in her capacity as the holder of power of attorney of Ratan Singh only. Complainants were not in India on that date but even then they have been shown as vendors in the sale deed. In fact, two persons impersonated the complainants and signed the sale deed in their names. These two impersonators were identified by Indrapal Singh and Ram Kumar as the complainants for executing the said sale deed. . (iii) It was alleged in the complaint that Harendrajeet Singh knew the complainants very well since long. The signatures appearing in the sale deed purported to be those of complainants are not their signatures Complainants were not in India on this date much less at Jabalpur. . (iii) It was alleged in the complaint that Harendrajeet Singh knew the complainants very well since long. The signatures appearing in the sale deed purported to be those of complainants are not their signatures Complainants were not in India on this date much less at Jabalpur. They could, therefore, never execute the sale deed and thus, the same is forged. All accused persons hatched the conspiracy and cheated the complainants. Petitioners of both the cases secured two impersonators who were identified by Indrapal and Ram Kumar. The petitioner- also identified the impersonators as the complainants fraudulently and thus, committed the offence punishable under section 420,467,468 and 120-B of the IPC. The complaint was registered by JMFC, Jabalpur. The case of petitioner Harendrajeet Singh (Babbu) as stated in the petition is that he is an elected Member of the Legislative Assembly of M.P. and has transport business. His parents were settled at Chiraidongri, District Mandla, where they had timber business. In 1984 riots, father of petitioner .was killed and thereafter he along with other family members shifted to Jabalpur, where he started the transport business. The petitioner was looking for a suitable building where he could live and open his office. Respondent Indrapal Singh is a property broker and he approached the petitioner and suggested him about a house of a family i.e. of Ratan Singh and complainants who had settled at Canada long back and intended to sell their house. Smt. Harjinder Kuar, (petitioner of M.Cr.C. No. 6828/ 04) assured him that she has been authorized to sell the house owned by three persons. The petitioner purchased the said property through Indrapal Singh. The petitioner being very much busy with his business asked Indrapal and Smt. Harjinder Kaur to handle the entire matter of sale. In due course Smt. Harjinder Kaur and Indrapal handed over the petitioner a duly executed registered sale deed and Smt. Harjinder Kaur got the house vacated and handed over the vacant possession thereof to the petitioner. The petitioner had no reason to doubt that the sale deed given to him by Smt. Harjinder Kaur and Indrapal is forged or fabricated. It was in December 2000 that the petitioner came to know about the same when complainant Gurubaksh intimated him that Smt. Harjinder Kaur had not been authorized by him for sale of the house. The petitioner had no reason to doubt that the sale deed given to him by Smt. Harjinder Kaur and Indrapal is forged or fabricated. It was in December 2000 that the petitioner came to know about the same when complainant Gurubaksh intimated him that Smt. Harjinder Kaur had not been authorized by him for sale of the house. The petitioner offered to return that part of the property which belonged to respondents No.1 and 2 on the condition that the amount paid by him be refunded to him proportionately. The case of Smt. Harjinder Kaur Chakal (petitioner No. M.Cr.C. No. 6828/02) is that in the complaint total allegations against her was that she had exceeded her limits as stated in the power of attorney of Ratan Singh. Ratan Singh has no grievance. The allegations made in the complaint that she identified the persons who impersonated the complainants is totally false and baseless as the petitioner has not put her signature as a witness and therefore, it cannot be said that she had identified the persons who impersonated the complainants. It is also the case of the petitioner Smt. Harjinder Kaur that on the basis of false facts, complainants have filed a civil suit before the Court of 6th Additional District Judge, Jabalpur for declaration, permanent injunction and possession which has been dismissed. I have heard Dr. Sardar Rajendra Singh learned senior counsel with Shri A. Singh, appearing for petitioner and Shri Hamid Khan learned counsel for respondents No.1 and 2 in M.Cr.C. No. 6842/03 and Shri S.K. Verma, learned counsel for petitioner and Shri Hamid Khan counsel for respondents No.1 and 2 in M.Cr.C. No. 6828/02; and perused the record. Dr. Sardar Rajendra Singh, learned senior counsel appearing for petitioner Harendrajeet Singh (Babbu) has submitted that the petitioner purchased the aforesaid property through Indrapal Singh and paid the price to Smt. Harjinder Kaur. The petitioner being very much busy with his business asked Indrapal Singh and Smt. Harjinder Kaur to handle the entire matter of sale. A perusal of sale deed reveals that it was executed by Smt. Harjinder Kaur, Sardar Jeet Singh and Gurubaksh in favour of petitioner Harendrajed Singh. The petitioner did not dispute that the consideration was paid by him to, Smt. Harjinder Kaur. When the sellers were more than one, it was necessary for him to pay the consideration to all of them. The petitioner did not dispute that the consideration was paid by him to, Smt. Harjinder Kaur. When the sellers were more than one, it was necessary for him to pay the consideration to all of them. From the evidence of Gurubaksh it is clear that on the date when the sale deed is alleged to have been executed, neither he, nor Jeet singh was in India. Both of them were at Canada. Apparently sale deed was not executed by the complainants and some persons by impersonation represented themselves as Jeet Singh and Gurubaksh Singh and executed the sale deed. The petitioner is also a beneficiary, he being the purchaser and therefore, it cannot be said at this stage that the sale deed was executed without his knowledge. The defence of the petitioner that he being occupied in his business asked the respondents Indrapal Singh and Smt. Harjinder Kaur to handle the entire matter of sale is to be proved by him during the trial. Shri S.K. Verma, learned counsel appearing for petitioner, Smt. Harjinder Kaur Chakal, has submitted that it has not been stated in the sale deed that petitioner Smt. Harjinder Kaur identified the two persons who executed the sale deed. From the documents it is clear that the sale deed was signed by three persons. Complainants were not present at the time of execution of sale deed. The complainants Gurubaksh and Jeet Singh are the relatives of the petitioner and they were known to her. From the evidence it is clear that they were not present in India at the time of execution of sale deed and at that time they were at Canada, therefore, it is obvious that some persons impersonating themselves as Gurubaksh and Jeet Singh signed the sale deed in presence of the petitioner Harjinder Kaur. Had there been no conspiracy, she would have informed the Registrar that the persons who have signed the sale deed are not Gurubaksh and Jeet Singh. There is also an evidence to the effect that consideration was received by the petitioner. She cheated with the knowledge that she is likely thereby to cause wrongful loss to Gurubaksh Singh whose interest in the transaction to which the cheating relate, she was bound to protect. There is also an evidence to the effect that consideration was received by the petitioner. She cheated with the knowledge that she is likely thereby to cause wrongful loss to Gurubaksh Singh whose interest in the transaction to which the cheating relate, she was bound to protect. A false document with intent to cause damage or injury to Gurubaksh and Jeet Singh or to cause them, to part with property was prepared in order to Commit fraud, therefore, there is prima facie evidence that petitioner Smt. Harjinder Kaur committed forgery. Facts and circumstances in the present case are such which exclude reasonable hypothesis of good faith on the part of petitioner Harjinder Kaur. Regard being had to be human conduct in the circumstances of the case, it may be presumed that the petitioners had the knowledge of the execution of the sale deed by impersonation. Learned counsel appearing for petitioners in both the cases emphatically submitted that the petitioners may be liable under the civil law only. Where matters are of purely civil liability they cannot be proceeded with under the criminal law. Where liability is of a civil nature it is not fair to prosecute the petitioners for the offences of cheating and forgery. The contention is not acceptable. The complainants were deprived of their property, therefore, they may file a suit for recovery of possession and also proceed against the wrong doer for cheating and forgery. On the basis of above discussion, it is clear that allegations made in the complaint disclose the offences alleged against the petitioners. In proceedings instituted on complaint, exercise of inherent powers to quash the proceedings is called for only in cases where the complainant does not disclose any offence or complaint is frivolous, vexatious or oppressive. If the allegations set out in the complaint constitute an offence of which cognizance is taken by the Magistrate, the same cannot be quashed in exercise of powers under section 482 of the Cr.P.C. It is not necessary that there should be meticulous analysis of the case before the trial to find out whether the case would end in conviction or not. The complaint has to be read as a whole. The complaint has to be read as a whole. If it appears on the consideration of the allegations in the light of the statements of the complainant on oath and the result of enquiry by the police that the ingredients of the offence are disclosed and there is no material to show that the complaint is mala fide, frivolous or vexatious, there would be no justification for interference by this Court. In the present case, allegations made in the complaint, prima facie, constitute the alleged offences. The trial Magistrate was satisfied on statements of complainants and evidence of witnesses examined and material on record that cognizance should be taken, hence it cannot be said that process has been issued mechanically to harass the petitioner. Much stress was placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that complainants also filed a civil suit against the accused persons and the suit has been dismissed. So far as the dismissal of the suit is concerned, it is alleged at the Bar that the appeal against the judgment of the Additional District Judge dismissing the suit is pending and the matter is sub-judice. Even otherwise the existence of civil remedy is no bar to trial for an offence under section 420 of the IPC. A person who is deprived of his property can file a suit for recovery of the possession of the property and also proceed against wrong doer for cheating and forgery. Mere pendency of civil suit is no ground to bar the proceedings in criminal Court in respect of cheating or forgery. Both the proceedings can continue simultaneously. Therefore, the existence of civil remedy or decision of civil Court against which an appeal is pending is no bar to a trial and on this ground also the proceedings cannot be quashed. Ex consequent, both the petitions are dismissed. A copy of this order be separately placed in the records of M.Cr.C. No. 6828/02.