A co-sharer’s sale of a property share, absent forgery or impersonation, does not constitute a criminal offence.

The informant, the widow of the petitioners’ deceased brother, alleged that the petitioners sold approximately 5 bighas and 7 kathas of ancestral joint-family land without her knowledge or consent and retained the sale consideration.

Bhagwanpur P.S. Case No. 12 of 2024 was registered under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B and 34 IPC.

The petitioners sought quashing, arguing that the dispute was civil and that they were co-sharers entitled to transfer their interests; they also relied on the parties’ willingness to mediate.

The informant’s counsel stated that she had no objection to quashing.

The parties jointly proposed mediation by a former Judge of the High Court to pursue a family settlement.

1. Whether the allegations concerning the sale of joint-family property disclosed the ingredients of the alleged criminal offences, or amounted only to a civil property dispute.

2. Whether the FIR and consequential proceedings should be quashed in light of the nature of the dispute, the parties’ willingness to mediate, and the informant’s stated lack of objection.

The Court considered Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B and 34 IPC, which concern, respectively, cheating by personation, cheating, forgery of valuable security or specified documents, forgery for cheating, use of a forged document, criminal conspiracy and common intention.

It referred to Section 44 of the Transfer of Property Act in connection with a co-owner’s transfer of an interest in joint property.

The Court also invoked the principles in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, concerning quashing of criminal proceedings, and the cited authorities on preventing criminal process from being used to pursue disputes that are essentially civil in nature.

It relied on Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. v. Cherian Varkey Construction Co. (P) Ltd., as quoted in Mahendra Nath Soral v. Ravindra Nath Soral, for the principle that partition and division disputes among family members or co-owners are ordinarily suitable for ADR.

The Court also referred to B.S. Krishna Murthy v. B.S. Nagaraj and Mahendra Nath Soral in support of mediation in family disputes.

The Court viewed the allegations as arising from a dispute over ancestral joint-family property and found that the petitioners were co-sharers.

It held that the sale of a share, in the absence of allegations of impersonation or document forgery, did not disclose the ingredients of the offences charged; the dispute therefore did not warrant continuation as a criminal prosecution.

The parties’ consent to mediation and the informant’s lack of objection to quashing were additional considerations.

The Court appointed the mutually proposed former Judge as mediator, while leaving the terms and fees to be settled between the parties.

It quashed Bhagwanpur P.S. Case No. 12 of 2024 and all prosecution arising from it, and allowed the application.

It also appointed Hon’ble Justice Shyam Kishore Sharma, former Judge of the Patna High Court, as mediator for an equitable family settlement.