ORDER : 1. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking to quash the FIR in Crime No. 431/2012 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467 and 468 of IPC. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and learned SPP for Respondent No. 1. 3. An agreement of sale dated 22.08.2007 was entered into between the petitioner (hereinafter referred to as ‘the accused’) and respondent No. 3/Smt. Saraswathamma in respect of the agricultural land bearing Sy. No. 20/2 measuring 2 acres 14 guntas and Sy. No. 20/3 measuring 2 acres 16 guntas. The petitioner herein agreed to purchase the said property for a total consideration of Rs. 9,26,25,000/-. Under the said agreement a sum of Rs. 2,50,00,000/- was paid to respondent No. 3 as advance. Petitioner filed a suit in O.S. No. 676/2011 for specific performance of the aforesaid agreement of sale contending that in terms of the aforesaid agreement of sale, from time to time, she has paid a total sum of Rs. 7,80,00,000/-. In the suit, the second respondent namely husband of the third respondent was arrayed as defendant No. 2 and it was specifically averred that in terms of the aforesaid agreement, a part of the consideration amounting to Rs. 5,30,00,000/- was paid to respondent No. 2 on execution of various receipts by respondent No. 2/Sri. Manjunath. 4. On receipt of suit notice, in view of the averments made in the plaint that a sum of Rs. 5,30,00,000/- was paid to the second respondent, he filed a complaint alleging that various receipts produced by the plaintiff namely the petitioner herein in the aforesaid suit O.S. No. 676/2011 were manipulated and forged. Based on this complaint, the aforesaid Crime No. 431/2012 has been registered against the petitioner and at that stage, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking to quash the said FIR. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the dispute between the parties is purely civil in nature and it is only after filing the suit by the petitioner for specific performance, the second respondent has engineered the aforesaid complaint to wriggle out of his liability in the civil suit. The documents relied on by the petitioner/plaintiff in the aforesaid suit are genuine documents which are executed by respondent No. 2 acknowledging receipt of consideration as shown therein. The documents relied on by the petitioner/plaintiff in the aforesaid suit are genuine documents which are executed by respondent No. 2 acknowledging receipt of consideration as shown therein. Respondent No. 2 is none other than the husband of respondent No. 3. In spite of receipt of the large amount of consideration, they failed to execute the sale deed, which compelled the petitioner to approach the Civil Court. Criminal proceedings are initiated by the respondents as a sequel to the suit with a view to force the petitioner to withdraw the suit, which amounts to abuse of process of court. 6. Secondly learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the allegations made in the complaint do not attract any of the ingredients of the offences under Sections 420, 467 and 468 of IPC. If for any reason, it turns out that by manipulation and forgery the alleged receipts are concocted, the said documents having been produced before the Civil Court, appropriate remedy is available to proceed against the petitioner under Section 340 of Cr.P.C. That having not been done, the criminal process could not have been set in motion by the respondents especially when the civil proceedings are initiated in respect of the very same cause of action is pending consideration of the Civil Court. Hence, the impugned proceedings are liable to be quashed. 7. In support of his arguments, learned counsel has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Nirmaljit Singh Hoon vs. State of West Bengal and Another, (1973) 3 SCC 753 with reference to paragraph 36 and has emphasized that “when such an offence is said to have been committed in respect of the document which is produced in a civil proceedings and in view of Section 195(1)(c) of the Act, only an offence under Section 340 of Cr.P.C. gets committed and therefore only Civil Court can initiate action for the alleged manipulation or forgery of the documents produced in the proceedings before the said Court.” On the same point, learned counsel has placed reliance on Md. Ibrahim and Others vs. State of Bihar and Another, (2009) 8 SCC 751 with reference to paragraph 8 thereon and would submit that “criminal court should ensure that proceedings before it are not used for settling scores or to pressurize parties to settle civil disputes.” In the instant case, learned counsel has emphasized that the dispute being purely civil in nature, respondents 2 and 3 should not be allowed to abuse criminal proceedings to convert civil dispute into a criminal offence. Learned counsel has also referred to a decision in Shri International Finance Limited, Bangalore vs. M.G. Narayana and Others, 1998 (3) Kar. L.J. 169 (Paragraph 22) and another decision in All Cargo Movers Pvt. Ltd. vs. Dhanesh Badarmal Jain and Another, (2007) 14 SCC 776 (Paragraph 16), wherein it is held that where the allegations made in the complaint when accepted in its entirety do not prima facie constitute the alleged offence against the accused, this Court can interfere with the impugned order in exercise of power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. 8. Refuting the above contentions, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 submitted that the allegations made against the petitioner squarely make out the ingredients of the offences under Sections 420, 467 and 468 of IPC. The matter is under investigation. Respondent No. 2 came to know about the alleged commission of offence only when he received notice of the suit filed by the petitioner. Respondent No. 2 having not received any consideration and having not issued any receipts to the petitioner, the very initiation of civil proceedings itself is bad in law. By forging the said documents, the petitioner has committed the alleged offences and therefore the matter requires to be investigated. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 has referred to the decision of this Court in Dr. Bhrmanand vs. State of Karnataka and Others, 2016 (2) Crimes (HC) 119 with reference to paragraph 11, wherein it is held that having regard to the gravity of charges leveled against the petitioner, the proceedings cannot be quashed at the threshold i.e., without verifying as to whether those allegations are true or false. Bhrmanand vs. State of Karnataka and Others, 2016 (2) Crimes (HC) 119 with reference to paragraph 11, wherein it is held that having regard to the gravity of charges leveled against the petitioner, the proceedings cannot be quashed at the threshold i.e., without verifying as to whether those allegations are true or false. Learned counsel has also referred to a decision of Rajasthan High Court in the case of Nanu Ram vs. State of Rajasthan and Another, (2011) 102 AIC 658 , which emphasizes that “as between a civil and criminal proceedings, the criminal matters should be given precedence.” Referring to paragraphs 5 and 6 of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M. Krishnan vs. Vijay Singh and Another, (2001) 8 SCC 645 , learned counsel would submit that having regard to the nature of the allegations made against the petitioner, the proceedings could not be quashed only because the petitioner had filed civil suit with respect to the documents which have come into existence by playing fraud and forging. It is contended that the allegations made in the complaint have to be established independently notwithstanding the adjudication by the Civil Court. “Where factual foundations of the offence have been laid down in the complaint, the High Court should not hasten to quash criminal proceedings merely on the premise that one or two ingredients have not been stated with money transaction between the parties.” 9. I have bestowed my careful thought to the rival contentions urged by the parties. It is not in dispute that the aforesaid agreement of sale was entered into between the third respondent and the petitioner herein vide agreement dated 22.08.2007. The second respondent/complainant was not a party to the said agreement. Under the said agreement, the petitioner herein had agreed to purchase the properties in Sy. No. 20/2 measuring 2 acres 14 guntas and Sy. No. 20/3 measuring 2 acres 16 guntas for a total sale consideration of Rs. 9,26,25,000/-. It is evidenced from the agreement that a sum of Rs. 2,50,00,000/- was paid and acknowledged in the said agreement and the balance consideration was required to be paid by the petitioner herein to the 3rd respondent at the time of registration. 10. No. 20/3 measuring 2 acres 16 guntas for a total sale consideration of Rs. 9,26,25,000/-. It is evidenced from the agreement that a sum of Rs. 2,50,00,000/- was paid and acknowledged in the said agreement and the balance consideration was required to be paid by the petitioner herein to the 3rd respondent at the time of registration. 10. The allegations against the petitioner is that she has forged certain receipts said to have been executed by the second respondent and on the strength of the said receipts, sought to contend before the Civil Court that she has paid substantial consideration of Rs. 5,30,00,000/- in the hands of second respondent and she is ready and willing to pay the balance sale consideration as stipulated in the aforesaid agreement of sale and therefore she is entitled for specific performance of the aforesaid agreement. The offences alleged against the petitioner are that the documents produced by the petitioner in the said suit are forged and manipulated documents. Respondent No. 2 has specifically contended that he has not executed any such receipts nor has he received any consideration from the petitioner in terms of the aforesaid agreement. Even though it is contended that the dispute between the parties is purely civil in nature arising out of the aforesaid agreement of sale, in view of the fact that respondent No. 2 namely the complainant not being a party to the aforesaid agreement, it cannot be said that the dispute between the petitioner and the complainant is civil in nature. On the other hand, the petitioner has sought for specific performance of sale deeds based on the receipts which are said to have been tainted on account of forgery. These allegations therefore squarely attract the offences under Sections 420, 467 and 468 of IPC. 11. On going through the aforesaid agreement of sale. I do not find any clause in the said agreement authorizing the petitioner herein to pay any part of the consideration into the hands of the second respondent. Under the said circumstances, the petitioner cannot preempt the action initiated by the 2nd respondent on the purported plea that adequate remedy is available to the 2nd respondent to take recourse to Section 340 of Cr.P.C. This plea is misconceived and not be pressed into service to preempt the criminal action initiated against the petitioner. Under the said circumstances, the petitioner cannot preempt the action initiated by the 2nd respondent on the purported plea that adequate remedy is available to the 2nd respondent to take recourse to Section 340 of Cr.P.C. This plea is misconceived and not be pressed into service to preempt the criminal action initiated against the petitioner. From the reading of Section 340 of Cr.P.C. it is clear that it is only when the Court is of the opinion that it is expedient in the interest of justice that an inquiry should be made into any offence, in respect of a document that is produced or given in evidence “in the proceedings before it” the Civil Court is required to act under Section 340 of Cr.P.C. The decision relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner makes this position further explicit that in order to take action under Section 340 of Cr.P.C. the offence in respect of the document which is produced before the Court should have been committed in a proceeding which is seized by the Civil Court. This is well explained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision reported in (1973) 3 SCC 753 (supra) in paragraph 36 in the following words: “The words “such court” mean a very court before which a party to a proceeding in that court has produced or tendered in evidence a document in respect of which the offence is alleged to have been committed. Clause (c) in other words, means that it is that court before which there is a proceeding and a party to such a proceeding is said to have committed an offence in respect of a document produced or tendered in evidence by him, on whose complaint the offence can be taken cognizance of.” 12. In the instant case, undisputedly, the case of the complainant is that the documents namely cash receipts were got up by the petitioner out of Court and on the strength of the said documents, a contention was taken up in a Civil suit seeking discharge under the agreement of sale. In the instant case, undisputedly, the case of the complainant is that the documents namely cash receipts were got up by the petitioner out of Court and on the strength of the said documents, a contention was taken up in a Civil suit seeking discharge under the agreement of sale. Therefore, in my view, even accepting the allegations made in the complaint as true, the same do not fall within the ambit of Section 340 of Cr.P.C. Even otherwise, law is now well settled that Section 340 of Cr.P.C does not bar the aggrieved parties to take recourse to criminal action when prima facie offence is committed in respect of any document falling within the definition of Sections 420, 465, 467 and 468 of IPC. In the instant case, the very basis for the prosecution of the petitioner is that she has forged and concocted the receipts making it to appear to have been issued by the 2nd respondent. These allegations squarely attract the ingredients of the offences under Sections 420, 467 and 468 of IPC, which necessarily require to be investigated. Therefore, I do not find any justifiable reasons to quash the impugned proceedings. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. 13. Any observations made in this order shall not influence the trial Court while dealing with the original suit or any other proceeding in respect of the transactions in question. The Investigating Officer also shall not get influenced by any observations made in this order and shall conduct the investigation independently.