ORDER The petition is filed seeking to quash the criminal proceedings in C.C. No. 1066 of 2003 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Tambaram. 2. The petitioners are the accused in the case launched by the second respondent. 3. The second respondent, alleging that the first accused, in the guise of putting up construction in the vacant site which belongs to the complaonant, obtained his signature therein saying that it was a power of attorney for exercising full rights of the owner to deal with the construction in the vacant site, created a power of attorney for selling the property of the complainant and sold away the property to his wife, the second accused, having received a sum of Rs. 3, 75, 000/- from the second respondent for the purpose of developing the property as agreed and thereby accused 1 and 2 have committed offences punishable under Sections 405, 406, 415, 417 and 423 of the Indian Penal Code, lodged a complaint before the first respondent police. The first respondent, having investigated the case, laid the final report as against accused 1 and 2 for offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 and 423 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the general power of attorney dated 7.7.2000 gives full authority to the first accused to sell away the property. Therefore, the second respondent, who is the de facto complainant, cannot complain as against the spirit of the written document viz., general power of attorney. It is his further submission that the second respondent, having laid a suit as against the petitioners seeking a relief of cancellation of the sale deed executed by the first accused in favour of the second accused, has come out with the first information report thereafter alleging criminal breach of trust, cheating and fraudulent execution of sale deed without actually passing on consideration. Therefore, the entire criminal proceedings is liable to be quashed. 5. Learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the first respondent would submit that the first information report and the 161 statements recorded from the witnesses would go to prima facie show that a fraudulent document has been created by the first accused and the property of the de facto complainant was sold away in favour of his wife, the second accused. Therefore, the question of quashing the criminal proceedings does not arise. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the second respondent would vehemently submit that the subsequent development would establish that the petitioners have chosen to cancel the sale deed executed by the first accused in favour of the second accused. Further, the entire materials would clearly go to show that the petitioners have cheated the de facto complaint who entrusted the property in the hands of the first accused. Therefore, the petition seeking quashment may be dismissed, he would submit. 7. The first information report launched by the de facto complainant and his statement and his son's statement recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure would speak to the fact that the vacant site entrusted to the first accused for the purpose of developing the same by putting up construction was sold away creating a power of attorney without passing any consideration either under the power of attorney or under the sale deed executed by the first accused in favour of the second accused. 8. It is submitted by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner that the subsequent development in this case cannot be taken into consideration and the Court is called upon only to analyse the first information report, the statements recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure from the witnesses concerned and the coduments collected by the investigating officer before laying the final report. 9. There is no bar for marking a document which came into existence later during the course of recording evidence through the witness concerned. It is found that the cancellation of the sale deed was executed by the first accused long after the completion of the investigation. Therefore, there was no occasion for the investigating official to seize the said document. Of course, the de facto complainant has laid a suit seeking cancellation of the sale deed executed by the first accused in favour of the second accused. But, the latest development, which admittedly culminated in cancellation of the sale deed itself by the first accused cannot be ignored while analysing the materials to find whether there is prima facie case made out against the accused. 10. If it is purely a civil dispute, then the Court should discourage launching criminal prosecution by the party concerned. But, the latest development, which admittedly culminated in cancellation of the sale deed itself by the first accused cannot be ignored while analysing the materials to find whether there is prima facie case made out against the accused. 10. If it is purely a civil dispute, then the Court should discourage launching criminal prosecution by the party concerned. When the act of a person attracts Civil litigation and criminal prosecution, the party affected can resort to both the processes of law simultaneously. There is no bar for launching the prosecution when prima facie case is made out even if the de facto complainant has already approached a civil forum for necessary remedy inasmuch as a civil remedy is sought only to redress the grievance of the party concerned, but, the criminal prosecution is launched for punishing the accused for the crime committed. 11. The investigating agency viz., the first accused has collected materials to show prima facie that there had been entrustment of the property of the de facto complainant in the hands of the first accused and the first accused, having created a false document, sold away the property to his wife without any consideration. As such, criminal proceedings inspite of the civil litigation cannot be quashed as sought for by the petitioners. 12. In view of the above, the petition seeking quaashment of the criminal proceedings in C.C.No.1066 of 2003 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Tambarak stands dismissed. Petition dismissed.