ORDER : P.S. Rana, J. Present petition is filed under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 to quash orders dated 20-05-2014 and 03-09-2014 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class Jubbal Distt-Shimla (H-P-) in case No-23/2 of 2014 title Mohan Lal Vs-Bal Krishan Rawat relating to FIR No- 46/2005 dated 28-06-2005 registered under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 & 474 IPC in Police Station Jubbal Distt. Shimla (H.P.). Brief facts of the case: 2. Sh. Mohan Lal complainant filed FIR No. 46/2005 dated 28.06.2005 against accused Bal Krishan Rawat alleging that accused person used to work as commission agent for selling of apple crop at Delhi and complainant used to send apple crop to accused. It is alleged that complainant was liable to pay Rs.42,428/- (Forty two thousand four hundred twenty eight) to accused and accused took blank cheque No.561552 from complainant as security. It is alleged that accused also filed civil suit No.130/1 of 2005/2002 for recovery of Rs.3,33,365/- (Three lac thirty three thousand three hundred sixty five) before learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division) Shimla whereby learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division) Shimla partly decreed the suit in favour of accused for recovery of Rs.1,61,843/- (One lac sixty one thousand eight hundred forty three) with interest @9% per annum from 20.01.1999 till institution of suit and @6% per annum from the date of filing of suit till realization of amount. It is alleged that thereafter civil appeal No.51-S/13 of 2007 title Mohan Lal Vs. Bal Krishan was filed and same was decided by learned Addl. District Judge Shimla (H.P.) on dated 10.04.2008. It is alleged that learned Addl. District Judge Shimla (H.P.) partly allowed the appeal and reduced the recovery amount to the tune of Rs.42,428/- only. It is alleged that accused committed cheating and forgery in blank cheque No. 561552 and entered amount to the tune of Rs.5 lacs. It is alleged that thereafter accused Bal Krishan filed complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act vide case No.7/3 of 2005 which was decided by Judicial Magistrate Jubbal Distt. Shimla (H.P.) on 12.10.2007 relating to cheque No. 561552 and Sh.Mohan Lal was convicted under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and to pay complainant to the tune of Rs.5,00,000/- (Five lac). Shimla (H.P.) on 12.10.2007 relating to cheque No. 561552 and Sh.Mohan Lal was convicted under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and to pay complainant to the tune of Rs.5,00,000/- (Five lac). It is alleged that appeal against judgment and sentence passed by Judicial Magistrate in case No.7/3 of 2005 is pending before competent authority of law. 3. Investigation was conducted and cancellation report filed by investigating agency. Thereafter complainant Mohan Lal filed objections relating to cancellation report filed by investigating agency and learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class Jubbal Distt. Shimla (H.P.) in the month of April 2007 accepted the objections filed by complainant Mohan Lal and learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class did not concur with the cancellation report and case was sent back to Police Station Jubbal for fresh investigation in accordance with law. Thereafter again fresh cancellation report was submitted before learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class Jubbal Distt. Shimla (H.P.) by the investigating agency and again objections filed by complainant Mohan Lal before learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class relating to investigation report submitted by investigating agency under Section 173 Cr.P.C. Complainant Mohan Lal requested that present case be tried as private complaint and thereafter learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class converted the complaint into private complaint and listed the case for preliminary evidence. Thereafter learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class Jubbal Distt. Shimla (H.P.) recorded preliminary evidence in private complaint and held on dated 20.05.2014 that there are sufficient reasons to proceed against accused and thereafter accused was summoned under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 & 474 IPC. Thereafter learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class recorded precharge evidence and thereafter learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class on dated 03.09.2014 held that prima facie case under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 & 474 IPC is made out against accused person and thereafter charge was framed against accused person on 03.09.2014. Accused has challenged summon order and charge framing order by learned Judicial Magistrate in present petition. 4. Court heard learned Advocate appearing on behalf of petitioner and learned Advocate appearing on behalf of non-petitioner No.1 and learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of non-petitioner No.2 and Court also perused the entire record carefully. 5. Accused has challenged summon order and charge framing order by learned Judicial Magistrate in present petition. 4. Court heard learned Advocate appearing on behalf of petitioner and learned Advocate appearing on behalf of non-petitioner No.1 and learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of non-petitioner No.2 and Court also perused the entire record carefully. 5. Following points arise for determination: (1) Whether petition filed under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 is liable to be accepted as mentioned in memorandum of grounds of petition? (2) Final order. Findings upon Point No.1 with reasons. 6. CW-1 Sh. Mohan Lal has stated that accused obtained blank cheque No. 561552 from him in the year 1996 as security. He has stated that accused kept blank cheque in his custody w.e.f. 1996 to 2005. He has further stated that he demanded blank cheque No. 561552 from the accused in the year 1998 but accused did not return back blank cheque No. 561552 and told that he has handed over blank cheque No. 561552 to C.T. Delhi and told that now there is no dispute inter se parties relating to money and account matter has been settled. He has stated that he also issued notice Ext.CW1/A to accused and accused replied notice Ext.DX. He has stated that accused has committed cheating and forgery with him and accused be punished in accordance with law. In cross-examination he has denied suggestion that complainant was liable to pay Rs.80,660/- on dated 06.12.1996. He has denied suggestion that on dated 13.08.1987 amount due to accused was Rs.1,07,837/- (One lac seven thousand eight hundred thirty seven). He has denied suggestion that in the month of October 1988 amount due was Rs.10,74,162/- (Ten lac seventy four thousand one hundred sixty two). He has admitted that civil suit for recovery was filed by Sh. Bal Krishan against him. He has admitted that civil appeal is pending before Hon’ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh. He has admitted that accused filed complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act against him. He has admitted that he was convicted and appeal is pending before learned Sessions Judge. He has denied suggestion that he is liable to pay amount of Rs.3,33,000/- (Three lac thirty three thousand). He has also denied suggestion that he took Rs.5 lac from accused and told that he would send the apples. He has admitted that he was convicted and appeal is pending before learned Sessions Judge. He has denied suggestion that he is liable to pay amount of Rs.3,33,000/- (Three lac thirty three thousand). He has also denied suggestion that he took Rs.5 lac from accused and told that he would send the apples. He has denied suggestion that he did not send the apples. He has denied suggestion that he issued cheque No. 561552 on dated 02.01.2005 in favour of accused. Self stated that blank cheque was used by accused against him after ten years. 7. CW-2 Sh. Bali Ram has stated that complainant and accused are known to him. He has stated that in his presence complainant requested the accused to return his blank cheque which was received by accused in the year 1996. He has stated that accused kept blank cheque for ten years in his custody. He has stated that accused had told in the year 1998 in his presence that he has sent the cheque to C.T. firm and same would not be used against complainant. In cross-examination he has admitted that Sh. Bal Krishan has filed a case against him. He has denied suggestion that he is not familiar with factual position of present case. 8. CW-3 Sh. Brij Lal has stated that parties are known to him. He has stated that in the year 1998 complainant demanded blank cheque from accused. He has stated that accused told him that he has sent the cheque to C.T. firm and he has no concern with blank cheque. He has admitted that Sh.Bal Krishan has filed a case against him. He has admitted that he has paid Rs.5 lac to accused when he was convicted. He has admitted that he has paid Rs.5 lac to accused by way of compromised proceedings. 9. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of petitioner that RSA No.492/2008 is pending before Hon’ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh relating to same facts and relating to same cheque No. 561552 and present private criminal complaint under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 & 474 IPC is not maintainable is rejected being devoid of any force for reasons hereinafter mentioned. Court is of the opinion that jurisdiction of civil Courts and jurisdiction of criminal Courts are entirely different and independent. Court is of the opinion that jurisdiction of civil Courts and jurisdiction of criminal Courts are entirely different and independent. Court is of the opinion that independent criminal complaint before judicial Court is not barred simply on the ground that civil litigation is pending before competent Court of civil law relating to same facts. It is well settled law that civil Court cannot decide criminal offence committed under Indian Penal Code 1860. It is well settled law that criminal offences committed under Indian Penal Code are always decided by criminal Courts. 10. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of petitioner that petitioner also filed complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act relating to cheque in dispute and complainant was convicted by learned Trial Court and thereafter appeal is pending before learned Sessions Judge and on this ground petition be allowed is also rejected being devoid of any force for reasons hereinafter mentioned. Court is of the opinion that offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 and offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 & 474 IPC are distinct and different offence. It is well settled law that parallel proceedings relating to distinct and different offence relating to same facts can be continued. See AIR 1961 SC 578 title State of Bombay Vs. S.L. Apte. 11. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of petitioner that two parallel proceedings relating to offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 and relating to offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 & 474 IPC could continue relating to same facts on the concept of double jeopardy is also rejected being devoid of any force for reasons hereinafter mentioned. It is well settled law that no one should be punished twice for one offence on the concept of nemo debet bis punire pro uno delicto. It is well settled law that if two offences are distinct offences then notwithstanding the fact that allegations of facts in two offences are substantially similar benefit of double jeopardy could not be invoked. It is well settled law that concept of double jeopardy will apply only when offences are same. See 2012 (7) SCC 621 title Sangeetaben Mahendrabhai Patel Vs. State of Gujarat and another. See AIR 2015 SC 75 title State of NCT of Delhi Vs. Sanjay. See AIR 1954 SC 375 title S.A. Venkataraman Vs. Union of India. It is well settled law that concept of double jeopardy will apply only when offences are same. See 2012 (7) SCC 621 title Sangeetaben Mahendrabhai Patel Vs. State of Gujarat and another. See AIR 2015 SC 75 title State of NCT of Delhi Vs. Sanjay. See AIR 1954 SC 375 title S.A. Venkataraman Vs. Union of India. See AIR 1953 SC 325 title Maqbool Hussain Vs. State of Bombay. 12. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of petitioner that petitioner did not commit any criminal offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 & 474 Indian Penal Code 1860 and on this ground petition be allowed is also rejected being devoid of any force for reasons hereinafter mentioned. Court has carefully perused the testimonies of CW-1, CW-2 and CW-3. All the witnesses have specifically stated that accused had stated in their presence on dated 8.9.1998 that cheque No. 561552 was sent to C.T. firm and he was not in possession of cheque No. 561552 but it is prima facie proved on record that in the year 2005 cheque No. 561552 was used for proceedings under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act 1881. Judicial findings whether accused has committed cheating and forgery or not cannot be given at this stage of case because same facts are complicated issue of facts and judicial findings relating to complicated issue of facts cannot be given at this stage of case. Judicial findings relating to complicated issue of facts will be given by learned Trial Court after giving due opportunity to both parties to lead evidence in support of their case. It is well settled law that at the time of framing of charge meticulous consideration of evidence and material should not be considered. It is well settled law that at the stage of framing charge Court has to prima facie consider whether there are sufficient grounds to proceed against accused. See AIR 1981 SC 1548 title Mohd. Akbar Dar & Others Vs. State of J & K and others. See AIR 2005 SC 359 title State of Orissa Vs. Debendra Nath Padhi. See AIR 1980 SC 52 title Supdt. & Remembrancer of Legal Affairs Vs. Anil Kumar Bhunja. See AIR 1977 SC 2018 title State of Bihar Vs. Ramesh Singh. See AIR 2001 SC 40 title State of Delhi Vs. Gyan Devi & Others. See AIR 2000 SC 665 title State of M.P. Vs. Debendra Nath Padhi. See AIR 1980 SC 52 title Supdt. & Remembrancer of Legal Affairs Vs. Anil Kumar Bhunja. See AIR 1977 SC 2018 title State of Bihar Vs. Ramesh Singh. See AIR 2001 SC 40 title State of Delhi Vs. Gyan Devi & Others. See AIR 2000 SC 665 title State of M.P. Vs. Johari & Others. See AIR 1997 SC 2041 title State of Maharashtra Vs. Priya Sharan Maharaj & Others. It is held that it is not expedient in the ends of justice to give judicial findings relating to absence of mens rea or actus reus at this stage of the case. It is held that judicial findings relating to absence of mens rea or actus reus would be given by learned Trial Court after giving due opportunity to both parties to lead evidence in support of their case. It is held that there is no illegality in the orders of learned Trial Court dated 20.05.2014 and 03.09.2014. In view of above stated facts point No.1 is answered in negative. Point No.2 (Final order). 13. In view of my findings on point No.1 above petition filed under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 is dismissed. File of learned Trial Court along with certified copy of this order be sent back forthwith. Observations will not effect merits of case in any manner and will be strictly confined for disposal of present petition. Parties are directed to appear before learned Trial Court on 26.09.2016. Cr.MMO No.212/2014 is disposed of. Pending applications if any also disposed of.