JUDGMENT 1. - The instant miscellaneous petition has been filed by the petitioners seeking quashing of the F.I.R. No. 258/2012 registered at P.S. Chopasni Housing Board, Jodhpur. 2. Learned counsel for the the petitioners submitted that ex-fade proceedings of the F.I.R. impugned amounts to a gross abuse of the process of the Court and thus deserves to be quashed. He submitted that a civil suit has been filed in relation to the very same property as the Civil Court is seized of the matter, therefore, the police would be acting beyond its jurisdiction in entertaining the F.I.R. in question. He placed reliance on the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Radheshyam Kejriwal v. State of West Bengal reported in (2011) 3 SCC 581 and submitted that as the Civil Court is seized of the matter, the F.I.R. impugned should be quashed. He also placed reliance on the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Devendra & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in (2009) 7 SCC 495 ; Chandran Ratnaswami v. K.C. Palanisamy reported in 2013 Cr.L.R. (SC) 767 ; Paramjeet Batra v. State of Uttarakhand & Ors. reported in 2013 Cr.L.R. (SC) 67 and Thermax Limited & Ors. v. K.M. Johny reported in (2011) 13 SCC 412 in support of his arguments. 3. Per contra learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 and the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the police has already investigated the matter. The disputed documents were forwarded to the F.S.L. for examination from where a report has been received that the complainant's signatures were forged on the power of attorney, the agreement as well as the will. It is also submitted :hat the complainant's photograph which was appended on the power of attorney is a 30 years old photograph. They submitted that the I.O. upon the investigation conducted thus far has concluded that the petitioners are responsible for the offences, and therefore, they prayed that the F.I.R. impugned does not call for any interference. 4. Heard and considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and the judgments cited at the bar. 5. The Hon'ble Apex Court has laid the issue regarding effect to the proceedings of civil suit on a criminal case to rest in the case of Kishan Singh v. Gurpal Singh reported in 2010 Cr.L.R. (SC) 747. 4. Heard and considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and the judgments cited at the bar. 5. The Hon'ble Apex Court has laid the issue regarding effect to the proceedings of civil suit on a criminal case to rest in the case of Kishan Singh v. Gurpal Singh reported in 2010 Cr.L.R. (SC) 747. wherein it was held that the including of fact recorded by the Civil Court does not have any bearing so far as criminal case is concerned and vice versa A larger Bench of the Apex Court `considered the issue regarding the effect of the decision of the departmental proceedings on the criminal case in the case of State of N.C.T. v. Ajay Kumar Tyagi reported in 2012(8) SCALE 424 and whilst over-ruling the decision rendered in P.S. Rajya v. State of Bihar reported in (1996) 9 SCC 1 , it was held that exoneration in departmental enquiry proceedings cannot be made a group to quash the proceedings of the criminal case even on the same facts. 6. In this view of the matter and considering the fact that the Investigation Agency has already got the disputed documents examined through the F.S.L. and as the complainant's signatures on the documents have been found to be forged and differing from his actual signatures, this Court is of the opinion that it cannot be held at this stage that ex-facie the F.I.R. impugned and the investigation carried out so far do not disclose any offence whatsoever so as to interfere in the same by exercising inherent powers of this Court.Accordingly, the miscellaneous petition seeking quashing of the F.I.R. impugned being devoid of any merit is liable to be rejected and is hereby rejected.Petition dismissed. *******