JUDGMENT J.J. Munir, J. This Application has been filed with a prayer to quash the complaint and entire criminal proceedings in Case No. 469/2003 “Mata Prasad vs. Sanwal Singh and others” under Sections 420, 468, 471, 406, 415, 419, 120-B IPC P.S. New Agra, Agra pending in the Court of Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Agra. 2. Heard Sri K.K. Dwivedi, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Vinod Kant, learned Additional Advocate General along with Sri Akhilesh Kumar Mishra, learned AGA appearing on behalf of the State. 3. This Court has perused the complaint and statements in support of the same under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. Some details of facts are required to be noted:- 4. The allegations in the complaint filed by opposite party no. 2 are that his father's brother's wife (Tai) Smt. Ramkali was an old woman aged about 75 years. She could hardly see due to poor vision, and was hard of hearing. The applicant no. 2 Sanwal Singh would take her to the doctor for treatment. Taking advantage of her old age and diminishing senses, applicant no. 2 along with applicants no. 1 and 3 who are arrayed as accused nos. 1, 2 and 3 in that order to the complaint filed before the Magistrate, took her to the Registrar's office on the pretext that the Government were providing old age pension to widows, and for that purpose, she would be required to present an application to the District Magistrate who would sanction it. It is also alleged that on 02.01.2003 they rode Smt. Ramkali on a bicycle to the Registrar's office, where a scribed sale deed was ready. This was done to make her execute a conveyance, by the three accused. The applicants convinced Smt. Ramkali to sign the said sale deed in favour of the applicant no. 2, to which the applicant no. 1 Pooran Singh, who was pradhan of the village stood witness. The said sale deed was fraudulently got executed by deceit in favour of applicant no. 2. The sale deed was executed in his favour without passage of any consideration, with the applicants cheating Ramkali by preparation of a false document through deception and fraud, and by misrepresentation of its character. The said sale deed was fraudulently got executed by deceit in favour of applicant no. 2. The sale deed was executed in his favour without passage of any consideration, with the applicants cheating Ramkali by preparation of a false document through deception and fraud, and by misrepresentation of its character. It is said that Ramkali, upon coming to know of the said fact, made an application to the District Magistrate on 25.02.2003 on the Tehsil Diwas and objected to the aforesaid fraudulent conveyance, but the accused-applicants did not permit any action to be taken, by managing matters with their influence. 5. It is indicated that failing to secure relief from the District Magistrate, she reported the matter to the S.S.P., Agra through an application dated 27.03.2003 sent through speed post, with copies to the District Magistrate and the S.O., P.S. New Agra, Agra, but no action was taken thereon. It is stated that in order to claim rights under the bogus sale deed, the applicants tried to take forcible possession of the premises allegedly conveyed through the sale deed, where Smt. Ramkali was residing. As such, she filed O.S. No. 297 of 2003 “Ramkali vs. Sanwal Singh” for cancellation of sale deed and permanent injunction seeking to restrain of the aforesaid accused from interfering with her possession over the suit property. The learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Agra granted an ad interim injunction vide his order dated 07.05.2003. 6. Opposite party no. 2 filed a complaint to the Magistrate, alleging commission of offence punishable under Section 415, 419, 420, 406, 461, 471, read with Section 120-B IPC, asserting that the act of securing a bogus sale deed through misrepresentation as to its character in order to cheat, constitute offences punishable by law. It is pointed out that in support of complaint filed by opposite party no. 2, Mata Prasad, the complainant was examined under Section 200 Cr.P.C., and his statement was recorded which is annexed as annexure no. 2 to the affidavit, in support of the present application. Likewise, Ramkali, the one who had been cheated of her property was examined in support of the complaint as a witness under Section 202 Cr.P.C., who set out all relevant facts about the manner in which she was fraudulently made to part with her property by the applicants, through cheating. 2 to the affidavit, in support of the present application. Likewise, Ramkali, the one who had been cheated of her property was examined in support of the complaint as a witness under Section 202 Cr.P.C., who set out all relevant facts about the manner in which she was fraudulently made to part with her property by the applicants, through cheating. A copy of the statement of Ramkali in support of the complaint recorded on 28.06.2003 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Agra is annexed as annexure no. 3 in support of the application. Another witness, Ganga Prasad was also examined under Section 202 Cr.P.C. on 28.06.2003. The Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Agra vide his order dated 06.04.2004 proceeded to summon the applicants to stand their trial, upon consideration of the complaint, the evidence in support, including the statements under Section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., besides documentary evidence, briefly referred to in the said summoning order. 7. The submission of Sri K.K. Dwivedi, learned counsel for the applicants is that the impugned prosecution is based on false and concocted facts, which is an abuse of process of court. He submits that applicant no. 2, Sanwal Singh purchased the property in question from Ramkali, vide registered sale deed dated 02.01.2003 for valuable consideration mentioned in the document, that was duly presented before the Registrar, at the time of execution and registration of the document. It is also urged that applicant no. 2, Sanwal Singh is in possession, pursuant to the sale deed. It is, in particular, emphasized that a civil suit filed by Ramkali is pending before the Additional Civil Judge, Senior Division, Agra where both parties have led their evidence. It is urged that the applicants have not committed any cheating or forgery. It is also urged that applicant no. 2 Sanwal Singh is bona fide purchaser for value, whereas applicants nos.1 and 3, Pooran Singh and Eva Singh are witnesses to the sale deed. It is, in particular, argued that since the same issue is pending before the Civil Court, where evidence has been recorded, parallel proceedings cannot be permitted to go on, and are required to be quashed on this count alone. 8. No one has appeared on behalf of opposite party no. 2, though a counter affidavit has been filed by opposite party no. 2 Mata Prasad, through his learned counsel Sri D.K. Kesharwani. 8. No one has appeared on behalf of opposite party no. 2, though a counter affidavit has been filed by opposite party no. 2 Mata Prasad, through his learned counsel Sri D.K. Kesharwani. It is stated there that the sale deed in question was got registered fraudulently by cheating Ramkali who is a poor, illiterate, deaf and an old woman with a weak vision. She is virtually a parda nasheen lady. She has not executed the sale deed in question, with knowledge of its contents or character. She has not received any consideration from the applicant. It is said that she was taken to the Registrar Office on the pretext of moving the Collector for extending her the facility of old aged pension meant for widows under some Government scheme, but instead she was fraudulently relieved of her property. 9. The issue is whether the impugned complaint or proceedings are maintainable, since the matter is engaging the attention of the Civil Court in a duly constituted suit. It is no longer res integra that on the basis of same facts, if a civil wrong and an offence are both disclosed, the civil and criminal courts are independent of the other to determine each, in their respective jurisdiction, untrammelled by the findings of the other. It is not that the findings of the civil court on the same fact in issue in a suit before it would work as res judicata, or as an issue estoppel to bar the criminal courts' jurisdiction, or to shut the mouth of parties in proceedings before the criminal court. The two courts in the two jurisdiction, civil and criminal, can reach contrary findings. Also, the judgment of the civil court, as such, is not relevant in criminal proceedings, except to the extent that it is provided to the contrary, by sections 40 to 44 of the Indian Evidence Act. That is not admittedly the case here. It would have been different if the act alleged a criminal offence, in proceedings before the Magistrate what was essentially a civil dispute, and not one that was both a civil wrong and a criminal offence. In the former case, proceedings before the criminal court can well be quashed; but, not in the latter. 10. It would have been different if the act alleged a criminal offence, in proceedings before the Magistrate what was essentially a civil dispute, and not one that was both a civil wrong and a criminal offence. In the former case, proceedings before the criminal court can well be quashed; but, not in the latter. 10. In a case where an act is both a criminal offence and a civil wrong, the law appears to be consistent that both the civil court and the criminal court would have jurisdiction independent of the other. As already said, both Courts can reach contrary conclusions. In certain cases, depending upon the facts, proceedings before the Civil Court or the Criminal Court may be stayed pending outcome of the case before the other. But on those considerations proceedings before the Criminal Court or before the Civil Court, cannot be quashed or scuttled. In matters where one of the proceedings are stayed, depending on facts obtaining in a particular case, it is to avoid the likelihood of embarrassment. An early Constitution Bench decision of the Supreme Court on the point is M.S. Sheriff and another v. State of Madras and others, (1954) AIR SC 397 where their Lordships held thus:- 15. As between the civil and the criminal proceedings we are of the opinion that the criminal matters should be given precedence. There is some difference of opinion in the High Courts of India on this point. No hard and fast rule can be laid down but we do not consider that the possibility of conflicting decisions in the civil and criminal Courts is a relevant consideration. The law envisages such an eventuality when it expressly refrains from making the decision of one Court binding on the other, or even relevant, except for certain limited purposes, such as sentence or damages. The only relevant consideration here is the likelihood of embarrassment. 16. Another factor which weighs with us is that a civil suit often drags on for years and it is undesirable that a criminal prosecution should wait till everybody concerned has forgotten all about the crime. The public interests demand that criminal justice should be swift and sure; that the guilty should be punished while the events are still fresh in the public mind and that the innocent should be absolved as early as is consistent with a fair and impartial trial. The public interests demand that criminal justice should be swift and sure; that the guilty should be punished while the events are still fresh in the public mind and that the innocent should be absolved as early as is consistent with a fair and impartial trial. Another reason is that it is undesirable to let things slide till memories have grown too dim to trust. This, however, is not a hard and fast rule. Special considerations obtaining in any particular case might make some other course more expedient and just. For example, the civil case or the other criminal proceeding may be so near its end as to make it inexpedient to stay it in order to give precedence to a prosecution ordered under S. 476. But in this case we are of the view that the civil suits should be stayed till the criminal proceedings have finished. 11. The decision aforesaid of their Lordships' was reiterated in the Constitution Bench decision in Iqbal Singh Marwah and another vs. Meenakshi Marwah and another, (2005) 4 SCC 370 , where the earlier decision in M.S. Sheriff (Supra) was endorsed :- 32. Coming to the last contention that an effort should be made to avoid conflict of findings between the civil and criminal courts, it is necessary to point out that the standard of proof required in the two proceedings are entirely different. Civil cases are decided on the basis of preponderance of evidence while in a criminal case the entire burden lies on the prosecution and proof beyond reasonable doubt has to be given. There is neither any statutory provision nor any legal principle that the findings recorded in one proceeding may be treated as final or binding in the other, as both the cases have to be decided on the basis of the evidence adduced therein. While examining a similar contention in an appeal against an order directing filing of a complaint under Section 476 of the old Code, the following observations made by a Constitution Bench in M.S. Sheriff v. State of Madras give a complete answer to the problem posed:(AIR p.399, paras 15-16) (quoted para of their Lordship's decision in M.S. Seriff (Supra) already extracted above is omitted) 12. Reiterating the principle in unambiguous words, the Supreme Court in P. Swaroopa Rani vs. M. Hari Narayana alias Hari Babu, (2008) 5 SCC 765 held:- 11. Reiterating the principle in unambiguous words, the Supreme Court in P. Swaroopa Rani vs. M. Hari Narayana alias Hari Babu, (2008) 5 SCC 765 held:- 11. It is, however, well settled that in a given case, civil proceedings and criminal proceedings can proceed simultaneously. Whether civil proceedings or criminal proceedings shall be stayed depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. 18. It goes without saying that the respondent shall be at liberty to take recourse to such a remedy which is available to him in law. We have interfered with the impugned order only because in law simultaneous proceedings of a civil and a criminal case is permissible.(emphasis by Court) 13. What is clearly deducible from the above authorities is that it is not the law that proceedings before the Criminal Court are to be quashed because the same fact in issue, that is subject matter of criminal proceedings between parties, is also the subject matter of a pending civil suit. In certain situations, however, proceedings of the Criminal Court, or may be, the Civil Court can be stayed pending decision of the other in order to avoid embarrassment to the parties. However, in those cases where stay of one or the other proceedings is granted pending decision in the other, the stayed proceedings would revive to be carried to their logical conclusion, irrespective of the outcome in the other jurisdiction. This is so because the Criminal and the Civil Court are completely independent of the other, and, on the same fact in issue between parties, they may arrive at contrary conclusions. The judgment of one in no way binds the other. Thus, the prayer to quash criminal proceedings on this ground cannot be granted. 14. In the present case, it is not known to this Court as to what is the stage and status of the civil suit filed for cancellation of sale deed and permanent injunction, in the year 2003. Assuming that it had been decided in all this while, it is not a ground to quash the proceedings impugned. So far as the relief of keeping these proceedings stayed, on the basis that the suit is at a particular stage, may be very advanced, and it would embarrass the applicant if these criminal proceedings are allowed to go on, has neither been pleaded or relevant facts and evidence brought on record to substantiate the same. So far as the relief of keeping these proceedings stayed, on the basis that the suit is at a particular stage, may be very advanced, and it would embarrass the applicant if these criminal proceedings are allowed to go on, has neither been pleaded or relevant facts and evidence brought on record to substantiate the same. In the absence of all this done that kind of stay awaiting decision of the civil suit, which is now a lost trail, cannot be granted. 15. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, there being a clear case alleging a criminal offence set out in the complaint, where on the basis of an enquiry, the Magistrate has summoned the applicants to stand their trial, this Court does not find any good ground to interfere with the complaint or the proceedings. As such, the prayer to quash the complaint and the entire criminal proceedings stand refused. 16. It is, however, provided that in case, at the appropriate stage, that is to say, at the stage of framing of charges, the applicant makes an application to seek discharge, the same shall be considered and disposed of in accordance with law, prior to proceeding further in the matter, uninfluenced by anything said in this order. 17. However, in case the applicants surrender before the court below within two months from today and apply for bail, the same shall be considered and decided in view of the settled law laid by this Court in the case of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P., 2004 57 AllLR 290 and affirmed by Apex Court in Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P, (2009) 3 ADJ 322(SC). For a period of two months from today, no coercive action shall be taken against them. However, in case, applicants do not appear before the Court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against them. 18. It is made clear that no further time shall be allowed to the applicant to surrender before the court below. 19. The application is disposed of accordingly.