A deed writer with no personal grievance cannot sustain criminal proceedings over disputed property documents.

The complainant, a licensed deed writer, alleged that the petitioner misused a General Power of Attorney executed by late Kamalpasha Inamdar and created false gift deeds concerning the deceased’s properties.

After police filed a ‘B’ report on the private complaint referred for investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., the complainant filed a protest petition.

The petitioner sought quashing under Section 482 Cr.P.C. of the proceedings in PCR No. 115/2021 and Crime No. 05/2022 for offences under Sections 419, 427, 420, 405, 406, 465, 468, 471, 504, 506 read with Section 34 IPC.

The State opposed quashing, arguing that the allegations disclosed cognizable offences and that the dispute should not be resolved in these proceedings.

Whether the complaint and material on record disclosed grounds to continue criminal proceedings against the petitioner for the alleged IPC offences

Whether continuation of the proceedings amounted to an abuse of process warranting quashing under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

The petitioner invoked the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to seek quashing of the proceedings.

The complaint and police case involved offences under Sections 419, 427, 420, 405, 406, 465, 468, 471, 504, 506 and 34 IPC; the complaint had been referred for investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.

The judgment cited no precedent and did not set out a separate test for quashing. It assessed whether the allegations and record justified continuation of the prosecution or whether doing so would constitute an abuse of process

The Court considered the complaint, petition and civil proceedings in O.S. No. 1099/2010 and found the allegations to be civil in nature.

It further held that the complainant, as a deed writer who was neither the owner nor shown to be an aggrieved party, had not established sufficient grounds to pursue the complaint.

Although the allegations concerned alleged misuse of the Power of Attorney and creation of documents, the Court concluded that the complainant had not made out grounds to proceed against the petitioner and that continuation of the case would amount to an abuse of process

It quashed the proceedings against the petitioner in PCR No. 115/2021, connected with Crime No. 05/2022 of Market Police Station, Belagavi, for the offences alleged under the specified IPC provisions.

Pending interlocutory applications, if any, were disposed of