JUDGMENT
Anil Dev Singh, J.
(1) This is a petition under section 482 Criminal Procedure Code . arising out of a criminal complaint filed by the respondent No.1 against the petitioner under sections 420/464/468/471/474 Indian Penal Code It appears that the complaint has its origin in the dispute between the petitioner and respondent No.1 relating to property No.C-21, Duggal Farm Khanpur Extension, New Delhi. The petitioner asserts that he is a tenant of the said property while respondent No.1 owner thereof disputes this position and claims that the petitioner was merely a licensee of a small portion of the property in question about which civil litigation is pending between the parties.
(2) The first respondent on July 4, 1988 filed a complaint against the petitioner under sections 420/464/468/471/474 Indian Penal Code in the Court of Acmm, New Delhi. The complainant appears to have set up the following case before the trial Court :
(3) “THE petitioner with a view to creating false and fabricated evidence and proof regarding his illegal occupation in the aforesaid house moved an application before the Rationing Department for obtaining a Ration Card in his name and gave his residential address as C-21, Duggal Farm Khanpur Extension, New Delhi. On the said application the petitioner forged the signatures of the first respondent and also forged an endorsement thereon purporting to be by him to the effect that he had no objection to the issue of a Ration Card in favor of the petitioner. In fact the first respondent did not sign the application nor made any endorsement thereon. On the basis of the forged signatures and the endorsement, the petitioner succeeded in obtaining a Ration Card which has now been converted into a new ration card. The first respondent had informed the Food & Supplies Department about the forgery committed by the petitioner but no action has been taken by the Department in this regard. The petitioner forged the signatures of the first respondent with the intention to create proof of his stay in the premises in question.
(4) In support of the complaint besides himself, the first respondent produced Mohan Lal an employee of the Food & Supplies Department and Ram Krishan, owner/partner of F.P.S.No.3679 before the learned Magistrate who recorded their statements by way of pre-summoning evidence. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate, however, by his order dated October 28, 1988 refused to summon the petitioner on the grounds, inter-alia, that the complaint appears to be an off-shoot of the civil suit filed by the first respondent and there was delay in filing the complaint in as much as the incident relates to the year 1986 and the complaint was filed on July 4, 1988. While passing the order the learned Metropolitan Magistrate also noticed the argument of the first respondent(complainant) that the petitioner had used the forged ration card as proof of possession in the Court of Shri S.S.Bal, Addl. District Judge. Aggrieved by the order of the the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, the first respondent filed a revision petition. The learned Additional Sessions Judge before whom the matter came in revision was of the view that the complaint prima facie disclosed a case under section 420/464/468/471/474 IPC. Therefore,the learned Additional Sessions Judge set aside the order of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate by her judgment and order dated on April 16, 1991. The petitioner not being satisfied with the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, has moved the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
(5) In the petition it is pointed out that in the year 1988 the petitioner was being dispossessed from the demised premises by respondent No. I, one Jamal Akhtar and Kartar Singh, Sub Inspector of Police, P.S.Ambedkar Nagar, which led to the filing of a suit for permanent injunction before Shri S.S. Bal, Addl. District Judge (Vacation Judge), who by his order dated June 7, 1988 restrained them from dispossessing the petitioner from the said property. After the opening of the Courts, the matter was marked to the Court of Shri H.S. Sharma, Sub-Judge, Delhi who by his order dated October 17, 1988 confirmed the aforesaid interim order. In the suit filed by the petitioner,the first respondent as well as Jamal Akhtar made statements in the Court that they shall not dispossess the petitioner from the suit property without due process of law. In view of these statements, the suit was dismissed as withdrawn. Thereafter the first respondent filed a suit for possession and permanent injunction against the petitioner in which as many as 10 issues were framed including issue No.3, namely, whether defendant No. I had been inducted as a tenant in the premises by defendant No.2, if so, to what effect.
(6) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the resolution of issue No.3 will take into its sweep the question whether or not the application of the petitioner for obtaining the Ration Card bears the forged signatures of the first respondent. He further contended that the same question which is before the Civil Court should not be allowed to be made a subject matter of criminal proceedings. It is the submission of learned counsel that if the civil court finds that the signatures of the first respondent were forged by the petitioner in that event it will be open to first respondent to initiate criminal proceedings against the petitioner. He also pointed out that the petitioner cannot be tried for an offence under section 471 Indian Penal Code without sanction of the appropriate authority.
(7) On the other hand, learned counsel for the first respondent submitted that the trial of a criminal case cannot be stayed only for the reason that a civil suit involving identical dispute was pending between the parties. He further submitted that the petitioner forged the signatures of the first respondent with a view to taking advantage from the Food & Supplies Department and for establishing that the petitioner was a tenant of the first respondent and therefore, the criminal complaint was maintainable.
(8) I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. It is not disputed that the petitioner and the first respondent are locked in civil litigation in which one of the issues to be decided is whether the first respondent had inducted the petitioner as a tenant in the premises. While the stand of the petitioner is that he was a tenant in the premises, the first respondent asserts that the petitioner was merely a licensee and was inducted as such on the recommendation of Jamal Akhtar who was a close friend of the first respondent. Be that as it may, the aforesaid issue before the civil court would also involve determination of the fact whether the first respondent had signed the application of the petitioner in his capacity as the landlord of the petitioner and whether he had made an endorsement thereon that he has no objection if the petitioner tenant gets the Ration Card on the address of the premises in question. In Jyoti Pershad Vs. Ramavtar and another 1984 (1) Recent Criminal Reports 279, this Court was confronted with a similar situation as is presented by the case in hand. The petitioner in that case filed a complaint against his father, brother and a cousin on the allegation that he was a partner of M/s. Silce which was a family concern and with a view to oust him from the partnership, a fake dissolution deed was fabricated by them. Before filing the complaint he had also filed an application under section 20 of the Arbitration Act for appointment of an Arbitrator by invoking arbitration clause contained in the partnership deed. His father, brother and cousin filed an application under section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of the complaint. This Court having regard to the pendency of the proceedings instituted in the Civil Court, wherein the defense to the complainant’s plea for appointment of an arbitrator was required to be examined and the question whether the dissolution deed purporting to bear the signatures of complainant were genuine or otherwise was also to be determined, quashed the complaint by holding that a complaint to the criminal court, in those circumstances would be premature and improper.
(9) Having regard to the facts & circumstances of the present case, it seems to me that the proceedings initiated by the first respondent by filing the criminal complaint under sections 420/464/468/471/474 Indian Penal Code amounts to an abuse of the process of the Court. In case the civil court comes to the conclusion that the application filed by the petitioner with the Food & Supplies Department bears forged signatures and also contains forged endorsement thereon of the first respondent, it will be open to the first respondent to initiate criminal proceedings against the petitioner.
(10) Having regard to the above discussion, the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge dated April 16, 1991 is set aside and the order of learned Metropolitan Magistrate dated October 28, 1988 is restored.
(11) The petition stands disposed of accordingly.