JUDGMENT Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. - Petitioner by fabricating and forging the documents, took loan from the respondent Bank, for which a FIR bearing No.41/2003 was registered at Police Station Kotwali, Bharatpur for offences under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Bank also filed a recovery suit which has been decreed and the amount has been paid to the Bank. 3. Civil and criminal cases can go together. Therefore, the very fact that the amount has been paid is no ground to quash the impugned FIR on the basis of compromise as loss has been caused to public exchequer and as per the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab & Anr., (2012) 10 SCC 303 , the dispute is not private in nature. 4. In case of fraud and loan from the Bank, Supreme Court in Central Bureau of Investigation vs. Jagjit Singh, (2013) 10 SCC 686 , has held as under:- "14. In the present case, the specific allegation made against the Respondent-accused is that he obtained the loan on the basis of forged document with the aid of officers of the Bank. On investigation, having found the ingredients of cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property of the bank (Section 420 Indian Penal Code) and dishonestly using as genuine a forged document (Section 471 Indian Penal Code), charge sheet was submitted under Sections 420 /471 Indian Penal Code against the accused persons. 15. The debt which was due to the Bank was recovered by the Bank pursuant to an order passed by Debts Recovery Tribunal. Therefore, it cannot be said that there is a compromise between the offender and the victim. The offences when committed in relation with Banking activities including offences under Sections 420 /471 Indian Penal Code have harmful effect on the public and threaten the well being of the society. These offences fall under the category of offences involving moral turpitude committed by public servants while working in that capacity. Prima facie, one may state that the bank as the victim in such cases but, in fact, the society in general, including customers of the Bank is the sufferer. These offences fall under the category of offences involving moral turpitude committed by public servants while working in that capacity. Prima facie, one may state that the bank as the victim in such cases but, in fact, the society in general, including customers of the Bank is the sufferer. In the present case, there was neither an allegation regarding any abuse of process of any Court nor anything on record to suggest that the offenders were entitled to secure the order in the ends of justice. In the instant case, the High Court has not considered the above factors while passing the impugned order. Hence, we are of the opinion that the High Court erred in addressing the issue in right perspective." 5. The judgment in the case of Central Bureau of Investigation vs. Jagjit Singh (supra) was relied by the Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra vs. Vikram Anantrai Doshi & Ors., (2014) 15 SCC 29 . 6. Therefore, the present petition being devoid of merits is dismissed.