Chandra Shekhar Jha, J. – Heard Mr. Lalit Kishore, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners in Cr. Misc. No. 31712/2025, Mr. N.K. Agrawal, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners in Cr. Misc. No. 31997/2025, and learned A.P.P. for the State duly assisted by Mr. Praveen Kumar, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2. 2. At the outset, it would be apposite to mention that both these quashing petitions preferred under section 482 of the Cr.P.C./528 of the B.N.S.S., 2023 to quash the same FIR i.e. Tilkamanji P.S. Case No. 74 of 2025 dated 02.04.2025 registered for the offences punishable under sections 329(3), 316(2), 318(4), 336(3), 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 (in short, the ‘B.N.S.’), pending in the court of learned C.J.M., Bhagalpur. 3. Accordingly, both petitions are being taken together for disposal through this common judgment. 4. Brief case of the prosecution speaks through written information dated 02.04.2025 given by informant/O.P. No. 2 that on 23.02.2025, when he returned from Kolkata at 8:30 A.M., and while going through Central Jail Road, he saw that one hut was constructed over his land by encroachment made by “land mafias”. On his protest, the hut, which was constructed over there was removed, but was disclosed by the occupants that said hut was made on the instruction of petitioners namely, Sunil Kedia, Ashok Sharma, Rajesh Kumar Santhalia and Arthak Santhalia. 5. It is further alleged thereof that the accused/ petitioners sold his land for Crores to some persons in conspiracy. It is also alleged that the petitioners were also involved in the aforesaid conspiracy and was trying to sell his land by taking forceful possession over the same. It is alleged that he got knowledge in the year 2017 that some persons had sold his land to Manorama Devi by making a forged signature of his father on 01.05.1965, whereafter the land in issue was mutated in the name of the petitioners being heirs of late Manorama Devi. Knowing the fact, the informant filed one Title Suit No. 362/2017, which is pending before the court of learned Sub-Judge-VIII, Bhagalpur. It is also stated that forensic examination of the original registered document is pending, and, thereafter, the present FIR was lodged to take appropriate legal action against the petitioners. 6. It is submitted by Mr. Knowing the fact, the informant filed one Title Suit No. 362/2017, which is pending before the court of learned Sub-Judge-VIII, Bhagalpur. It is also stated that forensic examination of the original registered document is pending, and, thereafter, the present FIR was lodged to take appropriate legal action against the petitioners. 6. It is submitted by Mr. Lalit Kishore, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners that the petitioners were implicated falsely in the present case due to malice and malafide intention. It is submitted that the FIR itself disclosed civil dispute between the parties arising out of land dispute, which is founded upon the alleged false signature of the father of the informant, on the basis of which the land in issue was transferred in the name of one late Manorama Devi, whom the accused/petitioners are claiming as her legal heirs. It is also evident from the FIR that the informant already filed a civil suit, being Title Suit No. 362/2017, which is pending in the court of learned Sub-Judge-VIII, Bhagalpur. 7. It is also submitted by Mr. Kishore that the petition under Order 39, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, restraining the parties from alienation of suit property, was passed on 16.03.2024 by the learned Sub-Judge-VIII, Bhagalpur on the application filed by the O.P. No. 2, which was set-aside by the learned District and Additional Sessions Judge- 1st, Bhagalpur vide judgment dated 07.01.2025 passed in Misc. Appeal No. 15/2024 filed by the petitioners, suggesting the balance of dispute in favour of petitioners. 8. It is pointed out by Mr. Lalit Kishore, that after passing the judgment dated 07.01.2025 in M.A. Case No. 15/2024, whereby the restraining order passed in Title Suit No. 362/2017 was revoked, the O.P. No. 2 lodged the present FIR making false and concocted allegations with the motto to convert the civil litigation into a criminal prosecution. 9. It is further submitted that as per the FIR, the date of the occurrence is 23.03.2025, whereas the same was lodged on 02.04.2025, which further suggests a false implication being an afterthought. It is also submitted that the aforesaid allegation is not specific against any of the petitioners. 10. Traveling further, it is pointed out by Mr. Lalit Kishore that the informant/O.P. No. 2 earlier filed a complaint case being Complaint Case No. 1975/2022 against petitioner no. It is also submitted that the aforesaid allegation is not specific against any of the petitioners. 10. Traveling further, it is pointed out by Mr. Lalit Kishore that the informant/O.P. No. 2 earlier filed a complaint case being Complaint Case No. 1975/2022 against petitioner no. 1 and his other relatives for the offences punishable under sections 467, 468 and 420 of the I.P.C., which was dismissed by Sri Rahul Dutta, learned Judicial Magistrate - 1st Class, Bhagalpur vide order dated 18.10.2023 under section 203 of the Cr.P.C. after enquiry. A copy of which is enclosed herewith as Annexure ‘P/3’, where after almost with the same set of allegations regarding the property in question, the present FIR was lodged. 11. In this context, it is also submitted that against the aforesaid dismissal of the complaint case, one Criminal Revision No. 152/2023 was preferred by the informant/O.P. No. 2 (Annexure ‘P/4’), which was also dismissed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-XI, Bhagalpur through order dated 13.09.2024. 12. It is pointed out that in the aforesaid background, no case, as alleged, is made out against the petitioners. It is submitted that petitioner no. 1 has lived in Mauritius since year 1999, having a residence permit issued by the competent officer of the country of Mauritius on 06.01.1999 (Annexure ‘P/5’), and therefore, his involvement with the crime in question does not appear justified. 13. In view of aforesaid factual background, learned senior counsel relied upon the legal report of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as available through Usha Chakraborty vs. State of West Bengal [2023 SCC Online SC 90] and Rikhab Birani and Anr. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr. reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 823. In Rikhab Birani case (supra), what the Hon’ble Apex Court has held in paragraph Nos. 19 and 20, which reads as under: – “19. It is the duty and obligation of the court to exercise a great deal of caution in issuing process, particularly when the matter is essentially of civil nature. The prevalent impression that civil remedies, being time-consuming, do not adequately protect the interests of creditors or lenders should be discouraged and rejected as criminal procedure cannot be used to apply pressure. Failure to do so results in the breakdown of the rule of law and amounts to misuse and abuse of the legal process. 20. The prevalent impression that civil remedies, being time-consuming, do not adequately protect the interests of creditors or lenders should be discouraged and rejected as criminal procedure cannot be used to apply pressure. Failure to do so results in the breakdown of the rule of law and amounts to misuse and abuse of the legal process. 20. In yet another case, again arising from criminal proceedings initiated in the State of Uttar Pradesh, this Court was constrained to note recurring cases being encountered wherein parties repeatedly attempted to invoke the jurisdiction of criminal courts by filing vexatious complaints, camouflaging allegations that are ex facie outrageous or are pure civil claims. These attempts must not be entertained and should be dismissed at the threshold. Reference was made to a judgment of this Court in Thermax Limited vs. K.M. Johny [ (2011) 13 SCC 412 ], which held that courts should be watchful of the difference between civil and criminal wrongs, though there can be situations where the allegation may constitute both civil and criminal wrongs. Further, there has to be a conscious application of mind on these aspects by the Magistrate, as a summoning order has grave consequences of setting criminal proceedings in motion. Though the Magistrate is not required to record detailed reasons, there should be adequate evidence on record to set criminal proceedings into motion. The Magistrate should carefully scrutinize the evidence on record and may even put questions to the complainant/investigating officer etc. to elicit answers to find out the truth about the allegations. The summoning order has to be passed when the complaint or charge-sheet discloses an offence and when there is material that supports and constitutes essential ingredients of the offence. The summoning order should not be passed lightly or as a matter of course.” 14. It is submitted by Mr. Praveen Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant/O.P. No. 2 that the petitioners concealed before the court while praying for “No Coercive”, which was granted in terms of the order dated 27.05.2025 by one of the learned coordinate Bench of this Court, that Complaint Case No. 1975/2022 and Cr. Revision No. 152/2023, were both set-aside by this Court through Cr. Misc. Revision No. 152/2023, were both set-aside by this Court through Cr. Misc. No. 24939 of 2025 dated 25.04.2025, for the reason that while recording the order of dismissal, learned Magistrate exceeded its jurisdiction and appreciated the fact instead of finding a prima facie case, which may adversely affect the right of informant/O.P. No. 2 during pending civil suit, where the core issue to decide the genuineness of signature of father of the informant. It is submitted that the original sale deed is with the petitioners, and if they have clean hands, then, they must produce the original certificate before the court for examination of its genuineness qua signature of his father, who said to execute the alleged sale deed in favour of the late Manorama Devi. It is pointed out that the land in issue is located in the prime location of the district of Bhagalpur and in due course of time, it becomes costly, and, thereafter, the petitioners, under conspiracy, by creating a forged signature of the father of the informant, as he usually lived outside Bhagalpur, firstly created a sale deed in favour of the mother and thereafter claimed the land as her legal heirs. 15. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2/informant categorically submitted that the factual allegation of this case, as raised through the present FIR, prima facie made out a cognizable offence and the same is not falls under any of the parameters as available under paragraph 102 of State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal [(1992) Supp (1) SCC 335], hence, the present petition for quashing of FIR is fit to be set aside/quashed. 16. It is submitted that this is not a case where a criminal allegation was raised for the first time in the year 2025, admittedly, the complaint case was lodged in 2022. It is also submitted that the pending civil suit does not bar the criminal case, if occasion so arises, as such. In support of his submission, learned counsel relied upon the legal report of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as available through Devendra and Others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr. reported in (2009) 7 SCC 495 and S.N. Vijayalakshmi & Ors. vs. The State of Karnataka and Anr. [2025 SCC Online SC 1575]. 17. In support of his submission, learned counsel relied upon the legal report of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as available through Devendra and Others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr. reported in (2009) 7 SCC 495 and S.N. Vijayalakshmi & Ors. vs. The State of Karnataka and Anr. [2025 SCC Online SC 1575]. 17. It would be apposite to reproduce the FIR being Tilkamanjhi P.S. Case No. 74 of 2025 dated 02.04.2025, which reads as under for ready reference: – lsok esa] Fkkukè;{k] frydkek¡>h Fkkuk] Hkkxyiqj fo"k;% QthZ nLr[kr dj dsokyk djk voSèkkfud :i ls dqN yksxksa }kjk esjh iSr`d laifÙk dCtk ,oa fcØh djus ds lacaèk esaA Jheku~ eSa dey eksgu Bkdqj] mez&62 o"kZ] firk&Loñ lqjs'k eksgu Bkdqj] lkñ&vkuanxढ iSysl] lw;Zeksgu Bkdqj iFk] Fkkuk&frydkeka>h] Hkkxyiqj] 812001 dk LFkk;h fuoklh gw¡A esjs nknk Loñ lw;Zeksgu Bkdqj us eksgYyk&tokjhiqj esa ,d Hkw[kaM ftldk jdok 0-2940 gsñ gS tks fd djhc 44 dV~Bk tehu gS vkSj ftldh pkSgn~nh mÙkj&lsUVªy tsy jksM] nf{k.k&xyh] iwjc&xyh if'pe&ljdkjh lM+d gS] dks y[kh izlkn ढu fnukad 23@03@2025 dks tc eSa dydRrk ls okil vk;k rks lqcg djhc 8%30 cts Jh fefFkys'k dqekj ds lkFk lsUVªy tsy jksM ls xqtjrs oDr ns[kk fd if'pe dksuk esa esjs bl tehu ij vfrØe.k dj ,d >ksiM+h cuk fy;k x;k gSA iwNrkN djus ij irk pyk fd ;g dqN HkwekfQ;kvksa }kjk jkrksa jkr cuok;k x;k gSA eSausa tehu ij tkdj bldk fojksèk fd;k rks >ksiM+h cukus okys us dgk fd ,slk mlus lquhy dsfM;k] v'kksd 'kekZ] jkts'k dqekj laFkkfy;k vkSj lkFkZd laFkkfy;k ds dgus ij fd;k gSA esjs fojksèk djus ij >ksiM+h cukus okys us >ksiM+h gVk nh ftldk fd eSusa QksVks [khap fy;k rFkk fofM;ksxzkQh dj fy;kA bl ?kVuk dks dbZ vU; yksxksa us Hkh ns[kkA lkFk gh ;g irk pyk fd Hkkxyiqj 'kgj ds ;s Hkw&ekfQk feydj lkft'k iwoZd mijksDr of.kZr Hkw[kaM dks tcnZLrh n[ky dj Hkkxyiqj ds vU; yksxksa ds gkFk lkft'k dj djksM+ks :i;s esa csp fn;k gSA bl dkaM esa 'kkfey Hkw&ekfQk dk fooj.k fuEufyf[kr gS& 1- lquhy dqekj dsfM;k] firk&Loñ xksih d`".k dsfM;k] fuoklh&,eñihñMhñ jksM] Fkkuk&dksrokyh] ftyk&HkkxyiqjA 2- v'kksd 'kekZ firk&Jh Ñ".knso pkSèkjh] fuoklh&53] cyjke Ms LVªhV] dksydkrk&6 3- jkts'k dqekj laFkkfy;k] firk&fot dqekj laFkkfy;k] fuoklh&xk¡èkh uxj] Fkkuk&dgyxk¡o] ftyk&Hkkxyiqj 4- lkFkZd laFkkfy;k] firk&Jh eukst dqekj laFkkfy;k] fuoklh&pkSèkjh Vksyk] okMZ uañ&12] utnhd jkfu lrh eafnj] dgyxk¡o] ftyk&HkkxyiqjA eq>s ;g Hkh irk pyk gS fd mijksDr ukfer pkjksa O;fDr ds lkFk iVuk fuoklh jktdey pkSèkjh] o:.k dqekj pkSèkjh] nksuksa firk&MkWDVj Nsnh pkSèkjh] flUgk ykbczsjh jksM] Fkkuk dksrokyh] iVuk ,oa muds lg;ksxh bl lkft'k esa 'kkfey gSa vkSj esjs bl tehu dks tkyh nLrkost ds vkèkkj ij vU; yksxksa dks csp dj djksM+ksa :i;s cktkj ls mBk pqds gSa vkSj vc tcju n[ky dj bldk jftLVªh djuk pkg jgs gSaA o"kZ 2017 esa gesa irk pyk Fkk fd fdlh tkylkt us ;g Hkw[kaM iVuk ds ,d MkWDVj ls lkft'k dj esjs firk dk tkyh nLr[kr dj Jhefr euksjek nsoh] ifr&MkWDVj Nsnh pkSèkjh] flUgk ykbczsjh jksM dks 01@05@1965 dks jftLVªh dj fn;k gS vkSj bl tkyh jftLVªh ds vkèkkj ij Jhefr euksjek nsoh ¼vc LoxhZ;½ ds okfjlku&1- v:.k dqekj pkS/kjh ¼vc LoxhZ;½ 2- o:.k dqekj pkSèkjh ,oa 3- jktdey pkSèkjh rhuksa iq=&Loñ MkWDVj Nsnh pkSèkjh us vius uke ls tkyh nLrkost izLrqr dj nkf[ky [kkfjt o"kZ 2017 esa MkWDVj Nsnh pkSèkjh us vius uke ls tkyh nLrkost izLrqr dj nkf[ky [kkfjt o"kZ 2017 esa djk fy;kA irk pyrs gh ge yksxksa us ,d VkbZfVy lwV eqdnek la[;k 362@2017 lc tt&8 Hkkxyiqj ds ;gk¡ nk;j dj fn;k tks fd ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; iVuk ds vkns'k ij fnu izfrfnu ds fglkc ls py jgk gSA mHk; i{k dks rFkkdfFkr jftLVªh dk ewy nLrkost nkf[ky djus ds vkns'k ikfjr gksus ds ckotwn os tkucw> dj ;g tkyh nLrkost U;k;ky; ds voyksdu ds fy, tek ugha dj jgs gSaA mDr tkyh jftLVªh dh Nk;kizfr ¼9 i`"B½ Jheku~ ds voyksdu ds fy, izLrqr dj ldrk gwWA lkFk gh esjs Loñ firk ds ikliksVZ dh Hkh Nk;kizfr izLrqr dj ldrk gw¡A ftlds voyksdu ls Li"V gks tk,xk fd bl jftLVªh ds dkxt ij esjs firk dk tkyh nLr[kr gSA lkFk esa jftLVªh dh Nk;kizfr i`"B 1&8 ij fd;s x;s esjs firk dk gLrk{kj fd;k x;k gS og fcYdqy fHkUu gSA lkFk gh esjs firk jftLVªh ds fy;s dHkh jftLVªh dk;kZy; ugha tkrs Fks] cfYd ?kj ij gh deh'ku djok dj jftLVªh djrs FksA gj jftLVªh ij muds fdlh LVkQ ds xokg ds :i esa uke ,oa gLrk{kj jgrk Fkk vkSj esjs firk ges'kk vaxzsth Hkk"kk esa nLrkost cuokrs FksA vr% Jheku~ ls izkFkZuk gS fd bu tkylktksa ls tkyh jftLVªh dk ewy nLrkost tIr dj mldk Forensic Examination djk;sa rkfd esjs ikfjokfjd tehu ij gekjk ekfydkuk gd dk;e dj ldsA lkFk gh Jheku~ ls iqu% vkxzg gS fd jktdey pkSèkjh] o:.k dqekj pkSèkjh] lquhy dsfM;k] v'kksd 'kekZ] jkts'k dqekj laFkkfy;k] lkFkZd laFkkfy;k o muds lHkh lg;ksxh tks fd bl uktk;t d`R; esa 'kkfey gSa ij èkks[kkèkM+h o muds lHkh lg;ksxh tks fd bl uktk;t ÑR; esa 'kkfey gSa ij èkks[kkèkM+h vkSj tkylkth ds lqlaxr èkkjkvksa esa izkFkfedh ntZ dj mfpr dkuwuh dkjokbZ dh tk;s ftlds fy, eSa Jheku~ dk lnk vkHkkjh jgw¡xkA vkidk fo'oklh gLrk{kj@& vLi"V ¼dey eksgu Bkdqj½ irk% vkuanxढ iSysl] lw;Zeksgu Bkdqj iFk] Fkkuk&frydkek¡>h] Hkkxyiqj 812001 eksñ uañ 9903294587 fnukad 01@04@2025 18. It would also be apposite to reproduce paragraph Nos. 7, 9, 11 & 12 of the judgment as available through Cr. Misc. No. 24939/2025 dated 25.04.2025 passed by this Court, where the order dated 13.09.2024 passed in Cr. Revision No. 152/2023 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge – XI, Bhagalpur and also the order dated 18.10.2023, as passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate - 1st Class, Bhagalpur in Complaint Case No. 1975/2022 are set aside with a direction to pass a fresh order qua the aforesaid complaint case in accordance with law, which reads as under: – 7. It is submitted that as per settled principle of law, the court is only to look whether a prima-facie case is made out or not, rather than to look into the probative value of the materials whether the case would culminate with acquittal or conviction. In support of his submission, learned counsel relied upon the legal report of Hon’ble Supreme Court as available through Amannullah and Anr. vs. State of Bihar and Ors. reported in (2016) 6 SCC 699 . 9. It would be apposite to reproduce para 25 of Amannullah’ case (supra), which reads as under: – “25. A careful reading of the material placed on record reveals that the learned CJM took cognizance of the offences alleged against the accused persons after a perusal of the case diary, charge-sheet and other material placed before the court. The cognizance was taken, as a prima facie case was made out against the accused persons. It is well settled that at the stage of taking cognizance, the court should not get into the merits of the case made out by the police, in the charge-sheet filed by them, with a view to calculate the success rate of prosecution in that particular case. At this stage, the court's duty is limited to the extent of finding out whether from the material placed before it, the offence alleged therein against the accused is made out or not with a view to proceed further with the case.” 10. At this stage, the court's duty is limited to the extent of finding out whether from the material placed before it, the offence alleged therein against the accused is made out or not with a view to proceed further with the case.” 10. Considering the submissions as canvassed by learned counsel for the petitioner and also the impugned order dated 18.10.2023, it appears prima-facie that learned Magistrate exceeded its jurisdiction while recording the impugned order of dismissal under section 203 of Cr.P.C., as the materials available on record appears to be appreciated in its probative terms which may prejudice legal rights of petitioner in civil suit as discussed above, which is not permissible in view of aforesaid legal provisions as available through Amannullah’ case (supra). Revisional court also failed to appreciate aforesaid aspects. 11. Accordingly, the order dated 13.09.2024 passed in Criminal Revision No. 152/2023 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-XI, Bhagalpur and also the order dated 18.10.2023 as passed by learned Judicial Magistrate – 1st Class, Bhagalpur in Complaint Case No. 1975/2022, are hereby set-aside with a direction to the court of learned Judicial Magistrate - 1st Class, Bhagalpur/concerned court as to pass a fresh order qua Complaint Case No. 1975 of 2022 with available materials in accordance with law, as discussed aforesaid without being prejudice. 12. Accordingly, this application stands disposed of.” 19. It would further apposite to reproduce para 13 of Devendra case (supra), which reads as such: – “13. There cannot, however, be any doubt or dispute whatsoever that in a given case a civil suit as also a criminal proceeding would be maintainable. They can run simultaneously. Result in one proceeding would not be binding on the court determining the issue before it in another proceeding. In P. Swaroopa Rani vs. M. Hari Narayana [ (2008) 5 SCC 765 : (2008) 3 SCC (Cri) 79] the law was stated, thus: (SCC p. 769, para 11) 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 fact and circumstances of each case.” 20. It would also be apposite to reproduce para 42 of S.N. Vijayalakshmi case (supra), which reads as under: – “42. 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 fact and circumstances of each case.” 20. It would also be apposite to reproduce para 42 of S.N. Vijayalakshmi case (supra), which reads as under: – “42. Coming to the second question i.e., whether civil and criminal proceedings both can be maintained on the very same set of allegations qua the same person(s), the answer stricto sensu, is that there is no bar to simultaneous civil and criminal proceedings. If the element of criminality is there, a civil case can co-exist with a criminal case on the same facts. The fact that a civil remedy has already been availed of by a complainant, ipso facto, is not sufficient ground to quash an FIR, as pointed out, inter alia, in P Swaroopa Rani vs. M Hari Narayana, (2008) 5 SCC 765 and Syed Aksari Hadi Ali Augustine Imam vs. State (Delhi Admn.) , (2009) 5 SCC 528 . The obvious caveat being that the allegations, even if having a civil flavour to them, must prima facie disclose an overwhelming element of criminality. In the absence of the element of criminality, if both civil and criminal cases are allowed to continue, it will definitely amount to abuse of the process of the Court, which the Courts have always tried to prevent by putting a stop to any such criminal proceeding, where civil proceedings have already been instituted with regard to the same issue, and the element of criminality is absent. If such element is absent, the prosecution in question would have to be quashed. In this connection, Paramjeet Batra vs. State of Uttarakhand, (2013) 11 SCC 673 can be referred to: ‘12. … Whether a complaint discloses a criminal offence or not depends upon the nature of facts alleged therein. Whether essential ingredients of criminal offence are present or not has to be judged by the High Court. A complaint disclosing civil transactions may also have a criminal texture. But the High Court must see whether a dispute which is essentially of a civil nature is given a cloak of criminal offence. Whether essential ingredients of criminal offence are present or not has to be judged by the High Court. A complaint disclosing civil transactions may also have a criminal texture. But the High Court must see whether a dispute which is essentially of a civil nature is given a cloak of criminal offence. In such a situation, if a civil remedy is available and is, in fact, adopted as has happened in this case, the High Court should not hesitate to quash the criminal proceedings to prevent abuse of process of the court.’ (emphasis supplied)” 21. In view of the aforesaid, as the allegation raised through the present FIR is of execution of a sale deed using forged signature of the father of the informant/O.P. No. 2 under conspiracy, in furtherance of which land in issue was found occupied/encroached on instance of petitioners and, moreover, original sale deed of land in issue is with petitioners, which yet to be collected by I.O. of this case to ascertain its genuineness, which is core issue qua allegation of forgery and cheating, which are cognizable criminal offences, therefore, this Court is not inclined to entertain the prayer of petitioners in view of sole argument that civil matter is pending between the parties as per legal ratio available through S.N. Vijayalakshmi case (supra), as both civil case and criminal case can co-exist, accordingly, aforementioned petitions stand dismissed. 22. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the court concerned, henceforth.