ORDER : 1. Criminal Petition No.102034/2017 has been filed by the petitioner/accused Nos. 1 and 3 and Criminal Petition No.102037/2017 has been filed by the petitioner/accused No.2 under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the order dated 07.09.2015 passed by the JMFC IV Court, Belagavi, in CC No.998/2015 taking the cognizance for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 504, 506 and 420 R/w. Section 34 of the IPC. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned HCGP for respondent No.1 and the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 – complainant in both the cases. 3. The gist of the complaint is that, accused No.1 is the daughter-in-law of the complainant. Accused No.1 got married with the complainant’s son on 13.05.1995. After the marriage, accused No.1 came to matrimonial home and led marital life. Her husband was helping respondent No.2 – complainant and his father in money lending business. During the year 2003, the husband of accused No.1 expired leaving behind accused No.1 and his daughter. It is further alleged that one of the sister-in-law of the accused No.1 by name Suman was not cordial terms with accused No.1 and she used to ill-treat her and as such, accused No.1 started residing in her parental house. Thereafter the complainant and her husband thought regarding the injustice caused to accused No.1 and complainant on her own came to accused No.1 and expressed her desire to give the residential house situated in Belagavi and executed a registered a gift deed on 20.10.2014 donating the residential house bearing plot No.72 corresponding to CTS No.5295. The actual possession of the property was also delivered. Since the accused No.1 and the sister-in-law Suman were not in good terms, she insisted respondent No.2 – complainant to cancel the gift deed. As gift deed has already been executed, she told that it cannot be cancelled and as such, she requested to file a suit to declare the gift deed as null and void. It is further alleged that, on the same day a private complaint has been filed against accused No.1 and other witnesses. The matter was referred to the APMC Police Station, Belagavi and after investigation charge sheet has been filed. Thereafter, the Court below by order dated 17.09.2015 took the cognizance and issued summons. Challenging the same the accused/petitioners are before this Court. 4. The matter was referred to the APMC Police Station, Belagavi and after investigation charge sheet has been filed. Thereafter, the Court below by order dated 17.09.2015 took the cognizance and issued summons. Challenging the same the accused/petitioners are before this Court. 4. It is the specific contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners/accused that the Court below while taking cognizance has not satisfied itself to know the prima facie case as against the petitioners/accused. When admittedly civil disputes are pending and the complainant, who is the donor has admitted the gift deed and the signatures there on, then the complaint itself ought to have been dismissed by holding that the matter is of civil nature. It is his further contention that accused Nos.2 and 3 were nothing to do with any coercion or fraud for taking the property in gift. They are only witnesses to the said gift deed. They have only attested to the fact that the signatures made in the gift deed dated 20.10.2014 is that of the donor. Neither they have played any fraud nor cheated anybody. Under these circumstances, the cognizance taken is not sustainable in law. It is his further contention that the contents of the complaint do not say that the signatures have been forged and that the said signatures are not that of the complainant-donor. Under these circumstances, the cognizance taken itself goes to show that, without there being any application of mind, the Court below has issued summons. It is his further contention that, when the question regarding the validity of the gift deed is subjudice before the Civil Court and hence the criminal prosecution on the same alleged facts and circumstances cannot be instituted by any other complaint and the same is liable to be quashed. In order to substantiate the said contention, he relied upon the decision in the case of Sardool Singh and Another Vs. Nasib Kaur (Smt.) reported in 1987 SCC 146 . On these grounds he prayed to allow the petition and to quash the proceedings as against the petitioners/accused. 5. Per contra, learned HCGP vehemently argued that the matter has been referred under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. The Investigating Officer after investigation filed the charge sheet. The charge sheet material clearly goes to show that, accused No.1 in collusion with accused Nos. 5. Per contra, learned HCGP vehemently argued that the matter has been referred under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. The Investigating Officer after investigation filed the charge sheet. The charge sheet material clearly goes to show that, accused No.1 in collusion with accused Nos. 2 and 3 have played fraud on the donor-complainant and got executed the gift deed. There is ample material against the accused and as such, the Court below has rightly issued summons. She further submitted that, if forgery is established, the accused have to be punished for the alleged offence and as such, at this initial stage, this Court cannot quash the proceedings. In order to substantiate her contention, she relied upon the decision of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Puttaraju Vs. The State of Karnataka and Another passed in Crl.P.No.8686/2015 dated 30.05.2018. On these grounds he prayed to dismiss the petition. 6. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 complainant vehemently argued that, merely because a suit is pending, a person who has committed offence under the Criminal Law is not completely absolved of the criminal liability. If the criminality is established on the allegation of similar facts and circumstances, the accused is liable to be convicted for the alleged offences. At this premature stage, it cannot be held that the accused No.1 in collusion with accused Nos. 2 and 3 has not played any fraud or coercion or obtained the gift deed. It is his further contention that the matter requires consideration and if the complainant is given full opportunity, she is going to establish that the accused No.1 in collusion with other accused persons has cheated the complainant. It is his further contention that the Court below while taking the cognizance has not violated any of the provisions of law and the procedure established in law. Under these circumstances, prima facie there is no abuse of process of law so as to quash the proceedings. On these grounds he prayed to dismiss the petition. 7. I have carefully and cautiously gone through the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the records. 8. On close reading of the contents of the complaint and other material, it discloses the fact that the accused No.1 is the daughter-in-law of the complainant and gift deed was got executed on 20.10.2014. 7. I have carefully and cautiously gone through the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the records. 8. On close reading of the contents of the complaint and other material, it discloses the fact that the accused No.1 is the daughter-in-law of the complainant and gift deed was got executed on 20.10.2014. It is the specific contention of the respondent No.2-complainant that the said gift deed, which is said to have been executed is obtained by playing fraud and she has been cheated by accused No.1 in collusion with accused Nos. 2 and 3. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the respondent No.2, merely because a civil litigation is pending, if any criminality is there as against the petitioners/accused, the same cannot be quashed. But as could be seen from the contents of the complaint and other material, the allegation is there as against accused No.1 stating that she has played fraud and obtained the signature of the complainant on the gift deed dated 20.10.2014. But insofar as petitioners/accused Nos. 2 and 3 are concerned, it is not the case of the complainant that the said witnesses have forged the signature and fabricated the signature while executing the said gift deed. They are only witnesses to the alleged deed which is said to have been executed by the complainant. That is the matter which has to be considered and appreciated by the Civil Court as to whether they are the witnesses to the said documents in accordance with law or not. There is no specific allegation with regard to they forging any document or that they have fraudulently brought the complainant by false promise or by undue influence. Under the said facts and circumstances, I feel that the Court below while taking the cognizance has not bestowed its attention to these aspects and has taken cognizance as against the petitioners/accused Nos. 2 and 3 also. But insofar as petitioner/accused No.1 is concerned, there is material against her. Investigation has already been completed and charge sheet has been filed and the said act of accused No.1 has to be ultimately concluded only at the time of trial. 2 and 3 also. But insofar as petitioner/accused No.1 is concerned, there is material against her. Investigation has already been completed and charge sheet has been filed and the said act of accused No.1 has to be ultimately concluded only at the time of trial. The Truth has to come out at the stage of trial and not at this premature stage and this Court cannot come to the conclusion that accused No.1 has not played any fraud and the said gift deed has been executed in accordance with law, that too when civil litigation is also filed contending that the said deed has been obtained by playing fraud and the same may be held as null and void. Hence the petitioner/accused No.1 has not made out any case so as to quash the proceedings. 9. In view of the discussion held by me above, the Criminal Petition No.102034/2017 is allowed in part and Criminal Petition No.102037/2017 is allowed. Proceedings initiated by the JMFC IV Court, Belagavi in C.C.No.998/2015 by virtue of the order dated 07.09.2015 are quashed only insofar as accused Nos.2 and 3 are concerned. Petition as against accused No.1 is dismissed. Since the complainant is aged about 80 years and she has contended that a fraud has been played and if the trial is not held expeditiously, it is going to ultimately affect the rights of the parties and no justice can be done in this behalf. In the peculiar facts and circumstances, the Court below is directed to dispose of the case expeditiously.