Competing sale deeds alone do not establish criminal cheating or forgery.

The applicant alleged that respondent No. 1 sold him Plot No. 10 by registered sale deed dated 8 August 2014, but later dealt with the property in favour of respondent No. 2 through other sale documents.

After finding construction on the plot, the applicant sought registration of an FIR for offences including cheating and forgery.

The Magistrate rejected his application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., finding the dispute civil in nature and no cognizable offence prima facie disclosed; the revisional court affirmed that order.

The applicant then challenged both orders under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

Whether the courts below erred in declining to direct registration of an FIR under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. when the applicant alleged that the same property had been dealt with through subsequent transactions

Whether the competing sale documents and the alleged subsequent transaction disclosed a cognizable offence, or instead raised a civil dispute concerning the parties’ respective property rights

Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. permits a Magistrate to direct investigation by the police; the applicant relied on Lalita Kumari v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2014 Vol. 2 SCC 1, for the principle that an FIR must be registered where information discloses a cognizable offence.

The Court stated that inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is to be exercised sparingly, where necessary to prevent abuse of process or secure the ends of justice.

A subsequent transaction that adversely affects a person’s claim does not, by itself, establish cheating or forgery, particularly where the dispute concerns the effect and extent of registered property documents.

The applicant’s own case rested on a registered sale deed executed in his favour, and the Magistrate found no allegation of a direct criminal act in its execution or connection between respondent No. 2 and that deed.

The effect of the correction deed and the extent of the property covered by the competing documents required determination of the parties’ rights on evidence; those matters could not be resolved from the Section 156(3) application alone.

The High Court found no perversity or judicial error in the conclusion that the allegations disclosed a civil dispute rather than, prima facie, cognizable offences.

It declined to interfere with the Magistrate’s order dated 18 January 2018 and the revisional court’s order dated 8 March 2018, and dismissed the petition as devoid of merit; the parties’ competing property claims were left to be pursued before the competent Civil Court.