Civil proceedings do not preclude criminal prosecution where allegations prima facie constitute elements of cheating.

The petitioner sought to quash FIR No. 1112/2022, the subsequent chargesheet, and criminal proceedings for offences under Sections 420, 34, 199, and 200 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

The case arose from a transaction involving the sale of immovable property.

The petitioner had executed a registered Power of Attorney (PoA) in favor of co-accused Manju Pandit to manage the sale.

The petitioner alleged he cancelled the PoA on 31.10.2022; however, the co-accused proceeded to execute the sale deed on 09.11.2022 and received the consideration.

The prosecution alleged that the complainant was induced to pay substantial sums, including Rs. 10,00,000/- credited to the joint account of the petitioner and his deceased mother.

The petitioner argued the dispute was purely civil, noting a pending civil suit for the cancellation of the sale deed.

1. Whether the criminal proceedings are liable to be quashed on the ground that the dispute is purely civil in nature.

2. Whether the material on record prima facie discloses the commission of cognizable offences by the petitioner.

3. Whether the High Court should exercise its inherent powers under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (B.N.S.S.) to quash the FIR and chargesheet at the threshold.

Section 528 of the B.N.S.S. (corresponding to Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.) regarding the inherent powers of the High Court to prevent abuse of process.

The court relied on the landmark parameters for quashing set out in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992).

The principle that civil and criminal proceedings can proceed simultaneously if the facts disclose both civil liability and criminal culpability.

The court reasoned that the investigation material, including banking records showing a transfer of Rs. 10,00,000/- to the petitioner’s family account, established a prima facie financial link and nexus between the petitioner and the alleged fraudulent transaction.

The court found that whether the PoA was validly cancelled or whether the petitioner had knowledge of the co-accused’s subsequent actions were disputed questions of fact that cannot be determined in a quashing petition and must be adjudicated during trial.

Regarding the civil nature of the dispute, the court held that the existence of a civil remedy or a pending civil suit does not preclude criminal prosecution if the ingredients of cheating and misrepresentation are prima facie present.

It concluded that the inherent powers under Section 528 B.N.S.S. must be used sparingly and not to conduct a "roving enquiry" into the correctness of allegations when the material collected by the police is not deficient.

The petition was dismissed.

Inherent powers to quash cannot be exercised when financial linkages and disputed facts necessitate a full-fledged trial to determine criminal intent.