JUDGMENT 1. - The instant miscellaneous petition has been preferred by the petitioners seeking quashing of the F.I.R. No. 342/2014 registered at P.S. Rawatsar for the offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B I.P.C. 2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the will on the strength whereof the complainant claims right over the property is under challenge before the Civil Court and as such the registration of the F.I.R. in relation to the disputes arising therefrom is absolutely impermissible and amounts to a gross abuse of process of Court. He further submits that even if the complainant's allegation are accepted to be true on their face value, the petitioners have not forged any document. He relies on the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Paramjeet Batra v. State of Uttarakhand reported in 2013(1) WLN-68(SC) in support of his contentions and submits that the proceedings of the F.I.R. impugned deserves to be quashed. 3. Per contra learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the complainant have vehemently opposed the submissions advanced by the counsel for the petitioners. Learned Public Prosecutor has submitted I.O.'s factual report dated 18.9.2014. As per the factual report, the I.O. after thorough investigation has found the offences under section 420 and 120-B I.P.C. proved against the accused. They, therefore, pray that no interference is called for in the impugned F.I.R. 4. I have given thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned F.I.R. and the documents available on record. I have also respectfully gone through the judgment cited at bar. 5. There cannot be any two views about the proposition of law propounded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Paramjeet Batra (supra). Para 7 of the judgment is quoted below for sake of convenience:- "7. While exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code the High Court has to be cautious. This power is to be used sparingly and only for the purpose of preventing abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure ends of justice. Whether a complaint discloses a criminal offence or not depends upon the nature of facts alleged therein. Whether essential ingredients of criminal offence are present or not has to be judged by the High Court. A complaint disclosing civil transactions may also have a criminal texture. Whether a complaint discloses a criminal offence or not depends upon the nature of facts alleged therein. Whether essential ingredients of criminal offence are present or not has to be judged by the High Court. A complaint disclosing civil transactions may also have a criminal texture. But the High Court must see whether a dispute which is essentially of a civil nature is given a cloak of criminal offence. In such a situation, if a civil remedy is available and is, in fact, adopted as has happened in this case, the High Court should not hesitate to quash criminal proceedings to prevent abuse of process of court." 6. The factual scenario in that case involved a dispute essentially about the profit of the hotel business and its ownership. The facts of the case at hand are entirely distinct. It is evident from the material available on record that the accused, acting in furtherance of conspiracy tried to usurp the share of complainant party from the property which was jointly bequeathed in favour of Dalip, Hetram, Maniram and Birbalram. In order to take their fraudulent deeds to a logical conclusion, the accused apparently misused the court proceedings. A civil suit was filed by Het Ram and Mani Ram against Dalip, Birbal Ram and Mahaveer. The sisters of Het Ram filed an application for impleadment as party in the suit and thereafter the suit was withdrawn on the basis of a claimed compromise. It is not disputed that no compromise was ever arrived at between Mani Ram, Het Ram and the original defendants Dalip, Birbal Ram and Mahaveer. It was stated in para no. 6 of the plaint that the defendants approached to the plaintiff and told him that they had got the will of the agricultural land belonging to Bhani Ram executed on 11.4.2007 as per their desire. The certified copy of will was annexed with the suit. It is relevant to mention here that as per the contents of the will Bhani Ram bequeathed his property in favour of the plaintiffs and the defendants. Thus, once appearance was given in the suit, the daughters of Bhaniram became aware of the registered will. Concealing the fact of the will, they executed a relinquishment deed in favour of Het Ram and thereafter the property was sold by Het Ram to his own mother in law. Thus, once appearance was given in the suit, the daughters of Bhaniram became aware of the registered will. Concealing the fact of the will, they executed a relinquishment deed in favour of Het Ram and thereafter the property was sold by Het Ram to his own mother in law. Het Ram is also a signatory in this document. In view of the aforesaid facts, this Court is of the opinion that exfacie, the case discloses essential ingredients of offences under the penal code and also gives rise to civil remedy. Thus, the aggrieved party would be entitled to avail civil remedy as well as the criminal proceedings in relations to the allegations. Reliance can be placed on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Indian Oil Corp. v. NEPC India Ltd. reported in AIR 2006 SC-2780 in this regard. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that it is not a fit case for quashing the impugned F.I.R. by exercising the inherent powers of this Court. 7. Accordingly, the misc. petition and the stay petition being devoid of any merit are dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******