JUDGMENT & ORDER : Aggrieved by the order dated 27-2-2016 of the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Kamalpur, Unakoti District in Ambassa PS Case No. 60 of 2012 directing the police to conduct further investigation with respect to the Will allegedly forged by the petitioners, this criminal petition is filed by them to quash the complaint. 2. It is the case of the petitioners that the petitioner No. 1 had instituted Title Suit No. 27 of 2008 before the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, North Tripura, Kailashahar against the respondent No. 1 and another for declaration of tile to and confirmation of her possession over the suit land on the basis of the Will executed by her brother-in-law, the late Chittranjan Malakar @ Chhita Malakar (brother of her husband) on 30-5-2005. After the trial of the suit, the learned Civil Judge by the judgment and decree dated 20-3-2010 held that the Will is genuine and partly decreed the suit. Both the petitioners and the respondent No. 2 preferred separate appeals from the said judgment i.e. Title Appeal No. 7 of 2010 and Title Appeal No. 8 of 2010 respectively. The learned District Judge, North Tripura, Kailasahar by a common judgment dated 10-12-2010 allowed the appeal of the petitioners, but dismissed the appeal of the respondent. The respondent thereafter preferred RSA No. 30 of 2014 before this Court, which by the judgment dated 10-7-2015 dismissed the second appeal holding that there was no substantial question of law for hearing of the second appeal. 3. The respondent apparently did not take things lying down and accordingly initiated a criminal proceeding against the petitioners by filing the impugned complaint before the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Kamalpur alleging that both the petitioner and her uncle, the respondent No. 2 jointly manufactured a forged Will by faking the signatures of his deceased father in order to grab the entire land left behind by him intestate. It is under the aforesaid circumstances that the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate passed the impugned order for further investigation by the police. 4. No representation from the respondent despite proper service of notice upon him. Assailing the impugned order, Mr. It is under the aforesaid circumstances that the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate passed the impugned order for further investigation by the police. 4. No representation from the respondent despite proper service of notice upon him. Assailing the impugned order, Mr. G.S. Bhattacharjee, the learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that the complaint filed by the respondent is barred by issue estoppel inasmuch as the same issue had already been heard and finally decided by a competent civil court of jurisdiction, and the decision of a civil court is binding upon a criminal court, which could not have entertained the same. He, therefore, submits that the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate committed jurisdictional error and of illegality in directing further investigation of the criminal case by the police. To buttress his contention, he places strong reliance upon M/S. Karam Chand Ganga Prasad and another etc. v. UOI and others, (1970) 3 SCC 694 and Amar Nath and another v. Atma Ram, 2007 (2) RCR (Criminal) 942. He, therefore, submits that the impugned order cannot be sustained in law and is liable to be set aside. 5. On perusal of the three judgments of the Courts below, it is found that there is a definite finding by each of them that the Will upon which the petitioners had claimed their title to and possession over the suit land was genuine and not a forged document. It was held by the first appellate court that “[T]hus, on the strength of the will, Mamata Malakar (the petitioner No. 1 herein), the plaintiff-appellant, became the absolute owner of the suit property measuring 2.04 acres.” In Karam Chand Ganga Prasad case (supra), it was held by the Apex Court that the decisions of civil courts are binding upon the criminal courts. The Punjab & Haryana High Court in Amar Nath and another (supra) also held: “7. Once the validity of the Will in question has been upheld by the Court and that too up to the highest level, it does not lie in mouth of the complainant/Respondent to initiate criminal proceedings against the Petitioners that they have forged the same. In fact, finding of fact by the Civil Court in respect of the validity of the Will is binding on the criminal Court and thus, the complaint in question is liable to be quashed. 8. In fact, finding of fact by the Civil Court in respect of the validity of the Will is binding on the criminal Court and thus, the complaint in question is liable to be quashed. 8. Learned Counsel for the Respondent submitted that there were allegations regarding the forgery of Will. These allegations were to be established independently in the criminal Court, notwithstanding the adjudication by a civil Court. In this regard, reliance has been placed on M. Krishnan Vs. Vijay Singh and Anr., 2001(4) RCR(CrI.)405. 9. There is no dispute with the proposition of law enunciated in the aforementioned ruling. However, in that case, the civil proceedings were still pending and yet to be finally decided by the Court. In the present case, the dispute regarding validity of Will has finally been settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The final conclusion arrived at by the civil Court in regard to the Will in question, is that the same was genuine and not a forged and fabricated document. In Manohar Lal Vs. Ram Chander 2003(3) RCR (CrI.) 786, this Court quashed the complaint in view of the finding of the civil Court by observing that the matter could not be allowed to be adjudicated upon all over again in the criminal proceedings.” 6. I am in respectful agreement with the above observations of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. As the criminal complaint, upon which the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate passed the impugned order directing further investigation, pertains to the same allegation, namely, the Will was a forged and fabricated document, for which a definite finding to that effect was already recorded by the three civil courts below, this criminal complaint is not maintainable being hit by issue estoppel and is, therefore, liable to be quashed. 7. For the reasons stated in the foregoing, this criminal petition succeeds. The impugned order dated 27-2-2016 is hereby set aside. The processes issued by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Kamalpur against the petitioners are accordingly quashed.