M.L Singhal, J.:— Sucha Singh was owner of property/house measuring 554.58 sq. yds. bearing No. B-XXI-14618 situated at GT Road, Dholewal, Ludhiana. He was also owner of land bearing Khasra No. 1933/420/2 situated in revenue estate of village Dholewal shown in jamabandi for the year 1984-1985. He had executed valid registered will dated 31.3.1989 in favour of his sons Ajmer Singh and Ajaib Singh bequeathing the property owned by him including the property in dispute. He is a retired District Foreman and he has visited many foreign countries. He always signed in English. He is conversant with other Indian Languages. He purchased the aforesaid house vide sale deed dated 21.2.1966 His sons Ajmer Singh and Ajaib Singh are settled in England. He has been going to England to see his sons and he resided with them many times. He has three daughters. One is Ajit Kaur wife of Capt. Lal Singh putting up at Chandigarh, others are Kulwant Kaur and Nachhar Kaur @ Satya putting up at Ludhiana. Two shops are on rent with Bhajan Singh proprietor of M/s Motor Spare Parts, GT Road, Gandhi Nagar, Ludhiana and M/s New Agro Motor House through its proprietor Mr. Sharma and back portion towards the railways line is in the occupation of Daljit Singh and Satpal Singh as tenants. Daljit Singh and Satpal Singh used to pay rent @ Rs. 600/- per mensum plus house tax to Sucha Singh. Other aforesaid tenants used to pay rent @ Rs. 600/- per month for the shops and Rs. 600/- per month rent for property No. 2045, Capt. Lal Singh Road in Gobind Nagar, Ludhiana. He was thus collecting rent to the tune or about Rs. 2600/- per month. In the year 1990, there was a marriage of the grand daughter of Sucha Singh in England. Such Singh attended that marriage and resided some time with his sons. Nachhtar Kaur also attended that marriage. Nachhtar Kaur requested him to reside with her some time in India and look after the property. It was orally settled between the families that out of the rent received by him, she will keep Rs. 1000/- for the maintenance of Sucha Singh. Rs. 1500/-, 1600/- will be deposited in his account. On this offer Such Singh came to India with the consent of his sons and started residing at 643, G.T Road Gandhi Nagar, Ludhiana. In the year 1991, i.e about the month of September to December 1991, Sucha Singh fell ill and remained under treatment of various doctors. He remained mostly under the confinement of his daughter Nachhtar Kaur @ Satya, Surjit Singh and Balwinder Singh Lambardar. They did not want that he should move freely and communicate with his sons and other relations. Surjit Singh and Nachhtar Kaur did not reply to the letters of Ajmer Singh and Ajaib Singh, the sons of Sucha Singh. They did not even respond to their telephone calls from England. In the month of December, 1994, some near relations informed Ajmer Singh and Ajaib Singh in England that Surjit Singh and Nachhtar Kaur are playing with the property of Sucha Singh and also that Sucha Singh was in bad health. Thereupon, Ajmer Singh and Ajaib Singh rushed to India and contacted Satpal Singh and Nachhtar Kaur who refused to tell them the whereabouts of Sucha Singh. Sucha Singh came to know that Satpal Singh and Daljit Singh had forged the sale deeds relating to Sucha Singh's property/plot situated at G.T Road, Gandhi Nagar opposite Dholewal, Ludhiana. Approximate market value of this property was Rs. 30.00 lacs. Sucha Singh was deprived of this valuable property by fraudulent act of Satpal Singh, Daljit Singh etc. On an application made by Ajmer Singh and Ajaib Singh, sons of Sucha Singh to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ludhiana to this affect, case FIR No. 172 dated 18.8.1995 was registered at PS Division No. 5, Ludhiana under Section 406/419/420/468/471/120-B IPC. Vide this Criminal Misc. petition No. 11737-M of 1996 filed by Satpal Singh and Daljit Singh sops of Gurbax Singh, they have prayed that the aforesaid FIR registered against them be quashed. It is averred by them that they are bona fide purchasers for consideration. Payment was made by pay orders “not transferable” and the amount was duly credited into the bank account of Sucha Singh. Sucha Singh duly executed the sale deeds and got them registered. Mutation was duly entered in the record and the relevant entries were duly made in the record of Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana. They have been duly assessed for house tax and they are paying house tax to Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana. Sale deeds were executed and registered in the year 1991 and the FIR was lodged on 18.8.1995 There is no explanation for this inordinate delay in the lodging of the FIR. On the same facts, civil suit tiled Sucha Singh v. Daljit Singh, has been filed in the court of Senior Sub-Judge, Ludhiana for declaration to the effect that he (Sucha Singh) is owner of the property, and the sale deed in respect of property No. 1933/420/2 as shown in the jamabandi for the year 1984-1985 of village Dholewal dated 10.10.1991 registered on 31.10.1991 vide Vasika No. 17227 in favour of Daljit Singh and the sale deed dated 10.10.1991 regeared on 31.10.1991 vide Vasika No. 14751 in favour of Satpal Singh regarding House No. B-XXI/14648 are illegal, null and void, without consideration and an act of fraud, conferring no right on them and the said civil suit is pending in the court of Sub Judge 1st Class, Ludhiana and Sales are not binding upon Sucha Singh. Copy of the plaint is Annexure P1. Sucha Singh died on 13.6.1995 It is further averred that there is family dispute between Ajmer Singh, Ajaib Singh, sons of Sucha Singh and their sister Nachhtar kaur @ Satya and her husband Surjit Singh, their sons and their widowed daughter Rani in respect of the accounts in respect of the rent (monies) and the sale proceeds of the property sold. As such, this FIR is not bona fide. During the days of militancy in Punjab in the years 1983 to 1992, there was no buyer for property in the State of Punjab and people were selling their property in the State of Punjab and going outside the State of Punjab to buy property. In the civil suit, the subject matter is the two sale deeds and the same property. Decree by the civil court will be binding on the criminal court. On the same facts continuation of the criminal prosecution would be an abuse of the process of the court.

2. State of Punjab has put in written statement opposing this prayer urging that Satpal Singh and Daljit Singh along with other accused had joined in criminal conspiracy to sell the property owned by Sucha Singh and the sale deeds were registered in the names of the petitioners the same day i.e on 10.10.1991 for consideration of Rs. 1.81 lacs each. Petitioners and other accused in connivance with each other opened a bank account in the name of Sucha Singh and after depositing the pay order, withdrew the said amount by account payee cheque in the account or Surjit Singh accused. It was denied that Sucha Singh executed any sale deed in favour of the petitioners or received any amount. Ajmer Singh and Ajaib Singh came to India in December 1994 when they came to know about the aforesaid conspiracy and then they lodged FIR in 1995. There is thus no delay in lodging the FIR. Fraud was committed by Nachhtar Kaur @ Satya daughter of Sucha Singh in connivance with her husband Surjit Singh and her sons Paramjit Singh and Avtar Singh and her daughter Kamaljit Kaur, petitioners and Balwinder Singh. All the accused forged the sale deeds on behalf of Sucha Singh and deprived him of the huge amount. Challan was put in the court on 13.6.1996 after the completion of investigation. Case was fixed for 15.11.1996 for framing of charge against all the accused. Court is seized of the matter and there is no question of quashing the FIR. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that they purchased the property vide registered sale deeds bona fide for valuable consideration. Sale deeds were executed by Sucha Singh and consideration was received by him. Property was sold at a lesser rate because during those days Punjab was heavily afflicted with the menace of terrorism. People were selling their property in Punjab at throw away prices. They were leaving Punjab and going to other States and purchasing property there. It was further urged that the payment was made to Sucha Singh by pay orders “Not transferable” and the amounts were credited into the bank account of Sucha Singh. It has been further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that Sucha Singh has filed suit for declaration impugning those sale deeds against the Daljit Singh, Satpal Singh, Surjit Singh, Nachhtar Kaur @ Satya, etc. Subject matter of that suit is this very property. Facts set up in the FIR are the facts allegedly constituting the cause of action to Sucha Singh. In the suit, the court will be determining all these questions of fact which have been posed in the FIR. On the same facts which constitute the plaint, the criminal case should not be permitted to go on. In support of this submission, he has drawn my attention to Sardool Singh v. Smt. Nasib Kaur, (1987) 2 LRS (Pb.) 633 where their Lordships of the Supreme Court held that criminal proceedings cannot be permitted to go on side by side with a view to judging as to whether will was forged one or not when the civil court is taking cognizance of the matter, whether will was forged or not. Hon'ble Supreme Court held so in view of the following facts:—

“A civil suit between the parties is pending wherein the contention of the respondent is that no will had been executed by the testator. The case for grant of probate is also pending in the court of learned District Judge, Rampur. The Civil Court is, therefore, seized of the question as regards the validity of the will. The matter is sub-judice in the aforesaid two cases in civil courts. At this juncture the respondent cannot be permitted to institute criminal prosecution on the allegation that the will is a forged one. That question will have to be decided by the civil Court after recording the evidence and hearing the parties in accordance with law. It would not be proper to permit the respondent to prosecute the appellants on this allegation when the validity of the will is being tested before a civil Court. We, therefore, allow the appeal, set aside the order of the High Court, and quash the criminal proceedings pending in the court of the Judicial Magistrate “First Class, Chandigarh in the case titled Smt. Nasib Kaur v. Sardool Singh. This will not come in the way of instituting appropriate proceedings in future in case the Civil Court comes to the conclusion that the will is a forged one. We of course refrain from expressing any opinion as regards genuineness or otherwise of the will in question as there is no occasion to do so and the question is wide open before the lower Courts.”

3. He has drawn my attention to Rattan Singh v. State of Haryana, 1996 (1) RCR 57 in support of his submission that where the question of forgery is pending determination before the civil court, the criminal court should stay its hands at once and not proceed to determine the question of forgery. In a case before it, if the civil court findings that there was no forgery, the criminal court will not be able to say that there was forgery because the finding of the civil court is binding on the criminal court. Criminal proceedings should be stayed till the decision of the civil suit. In Rattan Singh's case (supra), the facts as averred in the petition under Section 482 Cr. P.C seeking quashment of the FIR were that vide agreement dated 11.11.1992, owners of SCO 49, Sector 8 Panchkula, namely Narneder Kumar, Rajni Kawatra had agreed to sell the same in favour of the petitioners and an amount of Rs. 8.35 lacs had been paid in cash. There was a date stipulated in the agreement for execution of the sale deed. Inasmuch as the sale deed could not be executed upto the stipulated date and other agreement came to be executed on 8.1.1993 vide which the petitioners paid an amount of Rs. 5.10 lacs. The allegations made in the petition went on to reveal that later in point of time owners sold this property to Smt. Kailash Rani, who, later, in turn lodged the FIR in question alleging therein that she was in possession in consequence of sale made in her favour and that the documents prepared by the petitioners were forged. It was admitted position that the petitioners had already filed civil suit staking their claim with regard to that property wherein they had also moved an application for the grant of stay and the civil court had already granted ad-interim injunction in their favour and the civil suit was pending. Smt. Kailash Rani wife of respondent No. 2 there had also filed civil suit which was, however, later on, withdrawn. It was held that the civil court was seized of the matter and obviously one of the issues to be determined by the civil court was to whether the documents relied upon by the petitioners were forged or not. The findings of the civil court would be binding on the criminal court, that being so, it would be an exercise in futility to continue with the trial as its necessity may not arise if civil court determines the crucial issue with the regard to genuiness of sale agreements in favour of the petitioners. Thus it will be in the interest of justice to stay the proceedings in the case pertaining to FIR No. 51 dated 7.4.1993 sought to be quashed in the present petition. If the findings on the relevant issue are returned against the petitioners, obviously, criminal proceedings would revive. With these observations, the Criminal Misc. titled Rattan Singh v. State of Haryana, 1408-M of 1994 was disposed of.

4. In my opinion, the questions confronting the civil court in the aforesaid civil suit titled Sucha Singh v. Daljit Singh, are almost the same which are confronting the criminal court in case FIR No. 172 dated 18.8.1995 (ibid). It the civil court finds that the sales were for consideration effected by Sucha Singh of his free will and volition and that he had duly received the sale consideration and had signed the sales deeds, obviously, the criminal case will fall to the ground. If the findings of the civil court are returned in favour of Satpal Singh, Daljit Singh, etc., the continuation of criminal case will be an exercise in futility. If, on the other hand, the findings of the civil court are returned against the Satpal Singh, Daljit Singh, etc., the criminal case will become revived and be proceeded with. If for one reason or the other, the civil suit is withdrawn, then also the criminal case will become revived and be proceeded with. In the result it is ordered that criminal case is stayed and shall remain stayed till the decision of the civil suit. It will become revived if the findings on the relevant issues are returned by the civil court against the petitioners.

5. With these observations, this criminal miscellaneous petition is disposed of.