ORDER 1. This Criminal Petition is directed to quash the proceedings in C.C. No.800 of 2008 on the file of Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class at Sangareddy, Medak District. 2. The facts of the case are: Originally, the case property admeasuring 2 Acres situated in Sy.No.270/EE of Bhanur Village, Patancheru Mandal, Medak district belonged to one Veerayya, Lakshmaiah and Shivayya and they executed General Power of Attorney (hereinafter, the G.P.A) in favour of one Tirupathi Reddy who converted the property into plots and also sold the plots, whereas the petitioners herein are the purchasers of some of the plots. Subsequently, the 2nd respondent filed a private complaint on the file of Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Medak District, under Sections 427, 447, 448, 323 and 506 (ii) read with Section 34 of I.P.C. against the G.P.A. and the petitioners on the ground that they trespassed into the property. Consequently, the matter was referred to the concerned police under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. for investigation and report. Ultimately, the police filed final report treating the case as baseless and accordingly, the matter was closed. 3. Later, a protest petition was filed by the 2nd respondent under Section 210 of Cr.P.C. against Tirupathi Reddy i.e., the G.P.A. holder, and the petitioners asserting that the police having been influenced by them failed to conduct proper enquiry and further on the ground that corresponding civil suit was filed before a civil court, filed the final report. 4. Therefore, the point that arises for consideration is whether the calendar case is maintainable and liable to be quashed or not. 5. Significantly the private complaint was originally filed before the said Magistrate Court and was referred to the police concerned under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. for investigation and report and, consequently, the final report was filed and subsequently, the protest petition was filed. 6. It is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners that the Court below issued summons to the petitioners under Section 61 of Cr.P.C. to answer the charges, which is not warranted and in view of the facts of the case including the final report, the cognizance taken by the Magistrate Court is not tenable. 7. 6. It is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners that the Court below issued summons to the petitioners under Section 61 of Cr.P.C. to answer the charges, which is not warranted and in view of the facts of the case including the final report, the cognizance taken by the Magistrate Court is not tenable. 7. Much emphasis is to be given to the fact that the complaint was filed under Sections 427, 447, 448, 323, 506 (ii) R/w 34 of I.P.C. against the petitioners and the G.P.A. on the ground that the complainant is the absolute owner of the property and without any right the petitioners and the G.P.A. trespassed into the property and involved in the said offences which of course is subject to proof basing upon the relevant material. Certainly, when such allegations are made by the complainant it is for him to place satisfactory evidence including that with regards to his ownership of the property to punish the petitioners and the G.P.A. accordingly. It is also the duty of the police concerned to carry out proper investigation to find out the genuineness of the allegations and to take necessary measures for prosecuting the petitioners and the G.P.A. When once it is found that there is prima-facie material to proceed against them for the alleged offences, the involvement of civil liability will not preclude them from taking necessary action for the criminal liability. In other words, when there is material to prosecute a person or persons under Criminal Justice System, there is no other go except to initiate prosecution against him or them. 8. Omission on the part of police and judiciary to take cognizance of a case even though there is material prima-facie to proceed with under the concept of Criminal administration of justice amounts to non-discharging of their legitimate duties. Having been assigned with particular responsibilities or duties, they should consciously discharge their duties failing which the very purpose of assigning them those duties stands defeated. If that attitude is adopted, it encourages antisocial elements to occupy others’ properties and take shelter under the guise of involvement of civil liability to escape from the criminal liability which would lead to anarchy and chaos which can not be tolerated and allowed. 9. If that attitude is adopted, it encourages antisocial elements to occupy others’ properties and take shelter under the guise of involvement of civil liability to escape from the criminal liability which would lead to anarchy and chaos which can not be tolerated and allowed. 9. The police and the Judiciary are obligated to make all endeavors to demarcate in a given case whether their lies civil liability as well as criminal liability and if it is found that there is purely civil liability then the question of prosecution for criminal liability does not arise. To quote, sections 465 to 471 of I.P.C. deal with the question of forgery which is to be dealt with both under Criminal law as well as under civil law. In both the cases, it is to be ascertained whether there is an element of forgery of a questioned document for the purpose of using it as contemplated in those provisions for taking necessary action, in that process it is required to collect signatures of those whose signatures are alleged to be forged for comparison with the disputed signatures and report even utilizing the services of hand writing or finger print experts as the case may be. There is no distinction of the application of this procedure in either cases unless there is clear ascertainment of forgery of a questioned document which can be done on the basis of statements of concerned witnesses and comparison of concerned disputed and undisputed signatures on scientific analysis, no cognizance of corresponding cases should be taken. 10. Section 200 of Cr.P.C. provides for taking cognizance of an offence on complaint and examination of complainant and his or her witnesses present, if any, on oath observing necessary formalities therein. 11. Section 201 Cr.P.C. deals with procedure to be adopted by a Magistrate no competent to take cognizance of such a complaint. 12. 10. Section 200 of Cr.P.C. provides for taking cognizance of an offence on complaint and examination of complainant and his or her witnesses present, if any, on oath observing necessary formalities therein. 11. Section 201 Cr.P.C. deals with procedure to be adopted by a Magistrate no competent to take cognizance of such a complaint. 12. By virtue of Section 202 of Cr.P.C. any Magistrate on receipt of a complaint of an offence of which he is authorized to take cognizance or which has been made over to him under Section 192, may, if he thinks fit postpone the issue of process against the accused concerned and enquire into the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other person as he thinks fit, for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding subject to the other formalities noted therein. So, section 202 Cr.P.C. gives an option to the Magistrate to postpone the issue of process against the accused and enquire into the case by himself or direct an investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other person as he thinks fit for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding to take necessary action. 13. The case on hand is to be examined in the light of those options given. When the Magistrate forwarded the complaint under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. for the purpose of necessary investigation, it infers that he was under the impression that the ends of justice would be best served by doing so for the purpose of conducting necessary investigation, collecting necessary material and consequently filing necessary report under Section 173 of Cr.P.C. Basing upon the record available, it clearly appears that the final report was filed by the police mainly on the ground of involvement of civil liability in the matter without giving any definite finding as to the involvement of any criminal liability against the petitioners and G.P.A. which therefore is most untenable and derogatory of the relevant provisions of Criminal law. 14. Chapter XII of Cr.P.C. deals with the subject “information to the police and their powers to investigate”. In fact, the powers vested with the police to investigate cognizance case is absolute and without any restrictions or limitations. It is unethical to deviate from this procedure. 15. 14. Chapter XII of Cr.P.C. deals with the subject “information to the police and their powers to investigate”. In fact, the powers vested with the police to investigate cognizance case is absolute and without any restrictions or limitations. It is unethical to deviate from this procedure. 15. It appears that when the protest petition was filed by the complainant on the ground that the police failed to conduct necessary investigation and consequently failed to file necessary report having been influenced by the petitioners and the G.P.A. the lower Court accepted it prima-facie and proceeded to take it on file and thereby availed the other option and recorded the statements of the complainant and his witnesses. When the Magistrate got two different options enumerated above, it is not logical to claim that in view of the final report filed by the police he got no authority to go for the second option irrespective of whether the final report was filed on the basis of sound reasoning or not. There is no law which debars him to avail the second option when the first option is failed whereas, what is required is administration of justice both to the accuser and also to the accused for which necessary means are to be resorted to unless expressly barred by law. Further, the jurisdiction of the Court should not be interfered with. 16. In a decision reported in Bhagwan Das Agrawal Vs. State of U.P. and others (1990 Crl.L.J 916) it is observed with reference to relevant facts and circumstances that if the Magistrate treats the protest petition as complaint and directs the complainant to produce evidence under Sections 200 and 202, it will not be illegal procedure.” 17. 16. In a decision reported in Bhagwan Das Agrawal Vs. State of U.P. and others (1990 Crl.L.J 916) it is observed with reference to relevant facts and circumstances that if the Magistrate treats the protest petition as complaint and directs the complainant to produce evidence under Sections 200 and 202, it will not be illegal procedure.” 17. In a decision of the Supreme Court in KISHAN SINGH V. GURPAL SINGH AND OTHERS ( AIR 2010 SC 3624 ) under similar circumstance, while considering decisions in M/s. Karamchand Ganga Pershad and another v. Union of India and others ( AIR 1971 SC 1244 ) V.M. Shah v. State of Maharashtra and another ( AIR 1996 SC 339 ), K.G. Premshankar v. Inspector of Police and another ( AIR 2002 SC 3372 ), P. Swaroopa Rani v. M. Hari Narayana @ Hari Babu ( AIR 2008 SC 1884 ), Syed Askari Hadi Ali Augustine Imam v. State (Delhi Admn.) ( AIR 2009 SC 3232 ), M.S. Sheriff and another v. State of Madras ( AIR 1954 SC 397 ), Iqbal Singh Marwah v. Meenakshi Marwah ( 2005 (4) SCC 370 ) and Iqbal Singh Marwah v. Meenakshi Marwah (2009) 13 SCC 729 , observed as under: “Thus in view of the above, the law on the issue stands crystallized to the effect that the findings of fact recorded by the Civil Court do not have any bearing so far as the criminal case is concerned and vice-versa. Standard of proof is different in civil and criminal cases. In civil cases it is preponderance of probabilities while in criminal case it is proof beyond reasonable doubt. There is neither any statutory nor any legal principle that findings recorded by the court either in civil or criminal proceedings shall be binding between the same parties while dealing with the same subject matter and both the cases have to be decided on the basis of the evidence adduced therein. However, there may be cases where the provisions of sections 41 to 43 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, dealing with the relevance of previous Judgments in subsequent cases may be taken into consideration.” 18. However, there may be cases where the provisions of sections 41 to 43 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, dealing with the relevance of previous Judgments in subsequent cases may be taken into consideration.” 18. Therefore the Supreme Court comprehensively held that that the findings of fact recorded by a Civil Court would not have any bearing so far as the criminal case is concerned and vice-versa where standard of proof is different and there is neither any statutory nor any legal principle that the findings recorded by the Court either in civil or Criminal proceedings shall be binding between the same parties while dealing with the same subject matter where both the cases are to be decided on the basis of evidence adduced there in subject to some exceptions. 19. There is a confusion among police personnel with regards to the application of the concept as to whether existence of civil liability debars taking steps for criminal trial correspondingly under similar circumstances. Therefore, it is necessary to circulate copies of this judgment to all the Police Stations in the State. 20. Therefore, what the lower Court has to follow is as to whether the complainant is able to place sufficient material to try the petitioners and the G.P.A. in respect of the offences alleged. If sufficient material is not there, it is not maintainable. Hence, for the foregoing reasons, there are no merits to quash the petition and accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. The Registry is directed to send a copy of the judgment to the Director General of Police, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad for taking necessary measures as observed above.