Shri Kant Tripathi, J.;- Rejoinder affidavit filed on behalf of the applicants is taken on record. Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned AGA for the State and perused the record. 2. This is an application under section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the charge-sheet filed in the Case Crime No. 1267 of 2007, under sections 419, 420, 468, 120-B I.P.C., Police Station-Kotwali, District-Ghazipur as well the order dated 10.07.2007 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghazipur in Misc. Case No. 319 of 2002. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 and learned AGA for the State and perused the record. 4. According to the averment made in the first information report and the police report submitted under section 173 of Code of Criminal Procedure, one Anrudha Tiwari was owner of the disputed property. The respondent no. 2 claims his right on the basis of the sale deed dated 06.09.1989 alleged to have been executed by the said Anrudha Tiwari. The applicants, on the other hand, claim the disputed property on the basis of the sale deed dated 18.09.1989 executed by Anrudha Tiwari. The respondent no. 2 lodged the first information report with the allegations that the subsequent sale deed in favour of the applicants was without any authority, in view of the fact that the seller Anrudha Tiwari had already transferred the property in favour of the respondent no. 2, therefore, the subsequent sale deed was forged. 5. It may not be out of context to mention that during the life time of Anrudha Tiwari no first information report was lodged. The present applicants and the said Anrudha Tiwari instituted the Original Suit No. 818 of 1989 in the Civil Court for cancellation of the first sale deed dated 06.09.1989. The suit was decreed by the trial court on 05.02.1992. However, in appeal the finding of the lower court was reversed and the matter was remanded for a fresh decision, which is still pending. In that civil suit Anrudha Tiwari pleaded that he had not executed the sale deed dated 06.09.1989 in favour of the respondent no. 2. 6. It may also be mentioned that the respondent no. 2 has also filed Original Suit No. 509 of 1990 for cancellation of the subsequent sale deed dated 18.09.1989, which is also pending. 7. In that civil suit Anrudha Tiwari pleaded that he had not executed the sale deed dated 06.09.1989 in favour of the respondent no. 2. 6. It may also be mentioned that the respondent no. 2 has also filed Original Suit No. 509 of 1990 for cancellation of the subsequent sale deed dated 18.09.1989, which is also pending. 7. In view of the fact that both the civil suits are still pending and the matter is sub-judice before the civil court and the dispute is essentially with regard to title of the property, the criminal prosecution launched after about nineteen years does not require to be proceeded with as it would amount to an abuse of the process of the Court. 8. Therefore, from the facts and circumstances of the case, the dispute seems to be civil in nature. Only the authority of Anrudha Tiwari to execute the subsequent sale deed has been challenged in the first information report and the police report and there is no allegations that the subsequent sale deed was forged. 9. For the reasons discussed above, the first information report as well as other materials do not constitute any criminal charge against the applicants, therefore, the application is allowed and the proceeding of the criminal case arising out of Crime No. 1267 of 2007, under sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 120-B I.P.C., Police Station-Kotwali, District-Ghazipur are quashed.