Allegations of concerted false declarations to secure khata cannot be rejected without trial.

Respondent No. 2, the mother of petitioner No. 1’s deceased husband, alleged that petitioner No. 1 obtained transfer of the property’s khata into her exclusive name by falsely declaring herself the deceased’s sole legal heir.

She further alleged that petitioners Nos. 2–4 provided false address details in a mahazar to support the transfer.

Following a private complaint and investigation, a charge sheet was filed for offences under Sections 120B, 420, 504 and 506 of the IPC.

The parties’ competing claims to the property were also the subject of a pending partition suit.

The petitioners sought to quash the criminal proceedings under Section 482 CrPC (Section 528 BNSS).

The petition invoked the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC, corresponding to Section 528 BNSS, to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice.

The court applied the principle that, at the quashing stage, it should assess whether the allegations and investigation material disclose the offences alleged, without conducting a mini-trial or deciding disputed facts.

A civil dispute may coexist with criminal proceedings where the allegations disclose an element of criminality; the existence of a civil remedy alone does not justify quashing.

The court considered G. Saminathan, S.N. Vijayalakshmi and Mitesh Kumar J. Sha, which address criminal proceedings arising from disputes of a civil character, but held that their application depends on the facts and whether criminality is prima facie alleged.

The prosecution relied on petitioner No. 1’s affidavit declaring that she was the deceased’s sole legal heir, despite respondent No. 2’s asserted status as his mother, and on the discrepancy between the addresses recorded for petitioners Nos. 2–4 in the mahazar and those given in the petition.

The court held that these allegations and materials, including the claim that the petitioners acted in concert to secure the khata transfer, required assessment in the criminal proceedings.

Petitioner No. 1’s claimed inheritance rights and the parties’ competing ownership claims did not, by themselves, negate the alleged false declaration or justify quashing.

The cited precedents were distinguishable on their facts, and the court declined to determine disputed questions or conduct a mini-trial.

The rival claims to the property were left for determination in the partition suit, and the court made no finding on their merits.