The apex court held in the case of Lalmuni v. State of Bihar

1. Heard Shri Manish Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Parmatma Prasad Pandey, learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. This application under section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking quashing of the order dated 11.12.2024 passed by the learned Addl. chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.7 District Prayagraj under section 173(4) of the B.N.S.S. police station Kareli, District Prayagraj with the further prayer for a direction to the Addl. C.J.M. Court No. 7 District Prayagraj to direct the concerned Station House Officer, Police Station Kareli to lodge the FIR against the opposite parties no. 2,3 and 4.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the applicant herein had moved an application under section 174(4) of BNNS alleging therein that the opposite party no. 2 had executed a sale deed on 16.7.2024 in his favour through an imposter on the basis of the forged identification. With the aforesaid allegations the applicant has prayed for registration of the FIR against the opposite party no. 2, 3 and 4. The opposite parties no. 3 and 4 are the witnesses of the said sale deed. The said application has been rejected by the Addl. C.J.M. Prayagraj vide impugned order dated 11.12.2024 on the ground that if the aforesaid sale deed was forged then the applicant ought to have filed a civil suit for cancellation of the sale deed which has not been done by the applicant herein. Therefore, no prima facie case is made out and the application was rejected.

4. From the allegation made in the application moved under section 174(4) BNNS coupled with the sale deed annexed with the application, prima facie a case appears to have been made out against the opposite parties no. 2,3 and 4.

5. In a given case, even if the civil remedy is available to the aggrieved person he may also proceed with criminal prosecution against the accused persons and in that case application for registration of the FIR cannot be rejected merely on the ground that the applicant has not filed the civil suit.

6. The apex court held in the case of Lalmuni v. State of Bihar (2001 AIR SCW 2504) in para 8 of the report as below:- "There could be no dispute to the proposition that if the complaint does not make out an offence it can be quashed. However, it is also settled law that facts may give rise to a civil claim and also amount to an offence. Merely because a civil claim is maintainable does not mean that the criminal complaint cannot be maintained. In this case, on the facts it cannot be stated at this prima facie stage, that this a frivolous complaint. The High Court does not state that on facts no offence is made out. If that be so, then merely on the ground that it was a civil wrong the criminal prosecution could not have been quashed."

7. In Pratibha Rani V. Suraj Kumar, (1985) 2 SCC 370: (AIR 1985 SC 628), the question arose before the Apex Court that when the civil as well as criminal remedy is available to a party, can a criminal prosecution be completely barred. The court held in paragraph 21 at page 382 (of SCC) : (at P. 635 of AIR) as under:- "There are a large number of cases where criminal law and civil law can run side by side. The two remedies are not mutually exclusive but clearly co-extension and essentially differ in their content and consequence. The object of the criminal law is to punish an offender who commits an offence against a person, property or the State for which the accused, on proof of the offence, is deprived of his liberty and in some cases even his life. This does not, however, affect the civil remedies at all for suing the wrong-doer in cases like arson, accidents, etc. It is an anthema to suppose that when a civil remedy is available, a criminal prosecution is completely barred. The two types of actions are quite different in content, scope and import....." In case of Alpic Finance Ltd. v. P. Sadasivan, 2001 (2) JIC 68 : (AIR 2001 SC 1226), the Apex Court held that when some-body suffers injury to his person, property or reputation, he may have remedies both under civil and criminal law. The injury alleged may from basis of civil claim and may also constitute the ingredients of some crime punishable under criminal law. When there is dispute between them, the aggrieved person may have right to sue for damages or compensation and at the same time law permits the victim to proceed against the wrong- doer for having or cheating. committed an offence of breach of criminal Thus, it is clear that when civil remedy is available, criminal case is not barred and each case has to be decided on the basis of its peculiar facts and circumstances to find out whether on the facts of the case a criminal offence is made out or not."

8. In the instant case, the allegations coupled with the document annexed with the application prima facie makes out a case of impersonation and forging the documents and, therefore, the trial court has committed illegality in rejecting the application for registration of FIR against the opposite parties no. 2,3 and 4 on the ground that the applicant has not availed the remedy on civil side, available to him.

9. For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned order dated 11.12.2024 is hereby quashed and the matter is remitted back to the trial court to pass a fresh order on merits in accordance with law, on the basis of the aforesaid observations.

10. The application stands disposed of. Order Date :- 11.4.2025 o.k. (Anish Kumar Gupta,J.)

1. Heard Shri Manish Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Parmatma Prasad Pandey, learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. This application under section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking quashing of the order dated 11.12.2024 passed by the learned Addl. chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.7 District Prayagraj under section 173(4) of the B.N.S.S. police station Kareli, District Prayagraj with the further prayer for a direction to the Addl. C.J.M. Court No. 7 District Prayagraj to direct the concerned Station House Officer, Police Station Kareli to lodge the FIR against the opposite parties no. 2,3 and 4.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the applicant herein had moved an application under section 174(4) of BNNS alleging therein that the opposite party no. 2 had executed a sale deed on 16.7.2024 in his favour through an imposter on the basis of the forged identification. With the aforesaid allegations the applicant has prayed for registration of the FIR against the opposite party no. 2, 3 and 4. The opposite parties no. 3 and 4 are the witnesses of the said sale deed. The said application has been rejected by the Addl. C.J.M. Prayagraj vide impugned order dated 11.12.2024 on the ground that if the aforesaid sale deed was forged then the applicant ought to have filed a civil suit for cancellation of the sale deed which has not been done by the applicant herein. Therefore, no prima facie case is made out and the application was rejected.

4. From the allegation made in the application moved under section 174(4) BNNS coupled with the sale deed annexed with the application, prima facie a case appears to have been made out against the opposite parties no. 2,3 and 4.

5. In a given case, even if the civil remedy is available to the aggrieved person he may also proceed with criminal prosecution against the accused persons and in that case application for registration of the FIR cannot be rejected merely on the ground that the applicant has not filed the civil suit.

6. The apex court held in the case of Lalmuni v. State of Bihar (2001 AIR SCW 2504) in para 8 of the report as below:- "There could be no dispute to the proposition that if the complaint does not make out an offence it can be quashed. However, it is also settled law that facts may give rise to a civil claim and also amount to an offence. Merely because a civil claim is maintainable does not mean that the criminal complaint cannot be maintained. In this case, on the facts it cannot be stated at this prima facie stage, that this a frivolous complaint. The High Court does not state that on facts no offence is made out. If that be so, then merely on the ground that it was a civil wrong the criminal prosecution could not have been quashed."

7. In Pratibha Rani V. Suraj Kumar, (1985) 2 SCC 370: (AIR 1985 SC 628), the question arose before the Apex Court that when the civil as well as criminal remedy is available to a party, can a criminal prosecution be completely barred. The court held in paragraph 21 at page 382 (of SCC) : (at P. 635 of AIR) as under:- "There are a large number of cases where criminal law and civil law can run side by side. The two remedies are not mutually exclusive but clearly co-extension and essentially differ in their content and consequence. The object of the criminal law is to punish an offender who commits an offence against a person, property or the State for which the accused, on proof of the offence, is deprived of his liberty and in some cases even his life. This does not, however, affect the civil remedies at all for suing the wrong-doer in cases like arson, accidents, etc. It is an anthema to suppose that when a civil remedy is available, a criminal prosecution is completely barred. The two types of actions are quite different in content, scope and import....." In case of Alpic Finance Ltd. v. P. Sadasivan, 2001 (2) JIC 68 : (AIR 2001 SC 1226), the Apex Court held that when some-body suffers injury to his person, property or reputation, he may have remedies both under civil and criminal law. The injury alleged may from basis of civil claim and may also constitute the ingredients of some crime punishable under criminal law. When there is dispute between them, the aggrieved person may have right to sue for damages or compensation and at the same time law permits the victim to proceed against the wrong- doer for having or cheating. committed an offence of breach of criminal Thus, it is clear that when civil remedy is available, criminal case is not barred and each case has to be decided on the basis of its peculiar facts and circumstances to find out whether on the facts of the case a criminal offence is made out or not."

8. In the instant case, the allegations coupled with the document annexed with the application prima facie makes out a case of impersonation and forging the documents and, therefore, the trial court has committed illegality in rejecting the application for registration of FIR against the opposite parties no. 2,3 and 4 on the ground that the applicant has not availed the remedy on civil side, available to him.

9. For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned order dated 11.12.2024 is hereby quashed and the matter is remitted back to the trial court to pass a fresh order on merits in accordance with law, on the basis of the aforesaid observations.

10. The application stands disposed of. Order Date :- 11.4.2025 o.k. (Anish Kumar Gupta,J.)