JUDGMENT Naheed Ara Moonis, J. Heard the learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. and perused the record. 2. The instant application has been filed with a prayer to quash the proceedings of case no. 800 of 2013 (Seraz Ahmad vs. Mohd. Tarik Ahmad Khan and others), under sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B IPC, P.S. Ghosi, District Mau as well as summoning order dated 14.05.2015 passed in the aforesaid case. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants that dispute between the parties is purely of civil in nature which has been given the colour of criminal prosecution. The vague allegation has been made in the complaint that applicant has surreptitiously sold the property of the complainant by impersonation. Applicants' names are already continuing in revenue records, thus the allegations made in the complaint are absolutely false and concocted. Learned court below has proceeded against the applicants in a pedantic manner merely on the basis of statements of the complainant and of the witnesses recorded under Sections 200/202 Cr.P.C. and passed the summoning order against him to face the trial, which is nothing but an abuse of the process of law. 4. Per contra learned AGA opposed contention of the applicants stating that the order passed by the learned Magistrate does not suffer from any legal or procedural infirmity. Civil and criminal proceedings can run simultaneously. There is no statutory bar to agitate the criminal proceedings in respect to the dispute of civil nature where allegation made in the complaint constitutes an offence. The learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the matter after recording the statement of the complainant and the witnesses under sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. The innocence of the applicants cannot be adjudged at this stage. The applicants will have ample opportunity to raise objection at the appropriate stage. 5. Having considered rival submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, this Court does not find any justifiable ground for quashing the proceedings of the aforesaid complaint case in exercise of its inherent powers conferred under section 482 Cr.P.C. Therefore, the prayer for quashing the proceedings is refused. The application is accordingly dismissed. 6. 5. Having considered rival submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, this Court does not find any justifiable ground for quashing the proceedings of the aforesaid complaint case in exercise of its inherent powers conferred under section 482 Cr.P.C. Therefore, the prayer for quashing the proceedings is refused. The application is accordingly dismissed. 6. However, considering the facts and the circumstances of the case, it is directed that in case applicants appear before the court concerned in the aforesaid case within 30 days and apply for bail, the same shall be heard and disposed of in view of decision rendered in the case Smt. Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2005 Cr.L.J. 755 which was approved by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Versus State of U.P. (2009) 4 SCC 437 .