JUDGMENT Honble A.K. Roopanwal, J.—This writ petition is directed against the orders dated 27-2-2006 and 9-10-2007 passed by the Courts below. Vide order dated 27-2-2007 application 7-B moved by the petitioner for his discharge and the discharge of other accused from the case was rejected. 2. It appears from the facts of the case that criminal case No. 2193/05 was pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Najibabad, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, 506, IPC against the petitioner and some others. The main allegation against the accused persons was that they fabricated a false Will dated 14-10-01 alleged to have been executed by Smt. Sita Devi. According to the petitioner the Will in dispute was a genuine Will and about this Will a civil case No. 150/05 was pending in the Court of Civil Judge, Najibabad. In this case interim injunction had already been issued. In such circumstances the continuance of criminal proceedings would cause an irreparable harm to the accused and therefore, it was expedient that they should be discharged. The Magistrate did not agree with the contention of the petitioner and rejected the application vide order dated 27-2-2006. When revision No. 83/06 was preferred against the order dated 27-2-2006 that was dismissed by the revisional Court vide order dated 9-10-2007. Hence, this writ petition. 3. I have heard Mr. Rajiv Lochan Shukla, learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned AGA for the State and Mr. Mukhtar Alam for opposite party No. 2 and perused the record. 4. Mr. Shukla argued that the matter agitated before the criminal Court was of a civil nature about which a civil case was already in progress and as such criminal proceedings were liable to be dropped. By not doing the same the Judicial Magistrate as well as the revisional Court have committed an error of law and thus, the orders impugned in this petition are liable to be set aside. I do not agree. 5. It has been held in 2001 (43) ACC 1106, Kamla Devi Agarwal v. State of West Bengal and others, that the standard of proof in civil and criminal proceedings being different, hence, during the pendency of civil proceedings, criminal proceedings cannot be quashed. In this case the complainant had made out a prima facie case against the accused persons of forging of a document. In this case the complainant had made out a prima facie case against the accused persons of forging of a document. This Ruling of the Supreme Court was adopted by this Court in 2002 (45) ACC 63, Jhinkoo and others v. State of U.P. and another. This was a case where a civil suit for cancellation of sale deed was pending and even then criminal prosecution started. The Court found that the judgment of the civil suit shall not be relevant under Sections 40, 41 and 42 of the Evidence Act. The criminal proceedings were not disturbed. 6. In the light of the above Rulings it is very much clear that the fate of the criminal proceedings shall be judged independently of the civil suit except in very exceptional circumstances. For the purpose of continuation of criminal proceedings the relevant material would be the evidence collected by the I.O. If this evidence is sufficient to go ahead with the case, then it hardly matters that a civil litigation is pending about the subject matter agitated in the criminal proceedings. 7. Therefore, in the present case, the accused were not entitled to discharge solely on the ground that a civil case was pending between the parties concerning the Will in question. The evidence collected by the I.O. in criminal proceedings was sufficient to make out a prima facie case under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, 506, IPC and therefore, the trial Court was perfectly justified in not discharging the petitioner. In the like manner the revisional Court was also justified in upholding the view of the trial Court. 8. In view of the above, I do not find any merits in this writ petition. It is, accordingly, dismissed. ————