S.S Sodhi, J. (Oral):— The matter here pertains to a complaint under Sections 467, 468, 420, 120-B and 218 of the Indian Penal Code filed against the petitioner Matu Ram on the allegation that he, in connivance with Pritam Singh accused and another had forged the revenue records and changed the entries there in his favour.
2. The record shows that soonafter the complaint had been filed, the petitioner Mattu Ram filed a suit against respondent Jagdish seeking a prohibitory injunction to restrain him from interfering with his possession over the land comprised in Khasra No. 131/237 min, Rectangle No. 72, Killa Nos. 14, 23 and 24; Rect No. 79, Killa No. 4 measuring 32 Kanals situated in the revenue estate of village Kakrala, Tehsil and District Rohtak. This suit was contested by respondent Jagdish. One of the issue framed in this suit pertained to the alleged forgery of the revenue records. The issue framed in this behalf being in the following terms;
“Whether the change of Khasra girdwari in the name of the plaintiff was manupulated by the plaintiff as alleged. If so, to what effect?
3. The trial court decided the said issue in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent in the following terms:—
“The case of defendant is that change of Khasra girdwari in the name of plaintiff has been manipulated by plaintiff in connivance with Halka Patwari, Numberdars and Chowkidars, of-course, a copy of criminal complaint having been filed by the defendant against the above said persons had been placed on record and the same is Ex. PB but the same which is a matter of enquiry by the criminal court cannot help the case of the defendant in the instant because from the evidence which his been brought on record, it does not stand proved that any manipulation has been done by the plaintiff in the matter of correctness of Khasra Girdwari. Accordingly, this issue is decided against the defendant and in favour of the plaintiff”.
4. This finding was later up-held in appeal by the Addl. District Judge, Rohtak, by his order of May 30, 1986. The petitioner, who was the plaintiff in the suit, was granted the decree for injunction as prayed for.
5. It will be seen that the present complaint against the petitioner is founded upon the same allegation as contained in the written statement filed by respondent No. 1 in the civil suit filed against him by the plaintiff. In other words, the issue before the civil court and the matter raised here, namely; manipulation of the revenue record is the same. This having been determined and adjudicated upon by the civil court, it would clearly be an abuse of the process of the court to permit the criminal courts to continue any further with the complaint against the petitioner. In this view of the matter, the impugned order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak of August 13, 1986, is hereby quashed and the order of the trial magistrate of November 13, 1985, discharging the petitioner is accordingly hereby up-held.
6. This petition is thus accepted.