Criminal forgery proceedings were premature where the same agreement’s genuineness awaited civil adjudication.

Respondent No. 2 alleged that the petitioners relied on a forged agreement of sale dated 27 September 2014 to seek specific performance of a sale of his property in O.S. No. 1157 of 2018.

After learning of that suit, he filed a private complaint under Section 200 CrPC; following the Magistrate’s reference for investigation, Attibele Police registered Crime No. 507 of 2024 for offences under Sections 34, 120B, 420, 467, 468, 470, 471 and 463 IPC.

The petitioners sought to quash the criminal proceedings.

The agreement’s genuineness was also directly in issue in the pending civil suit.

Whether criminal proceedings alleging forgery of an agreement of sale should be permitted to proceed while the same agreement’s genuineness is in issue in a pending specific-performance suit.

Whether the complaint and reference order were liable to be set aside for the asserted defects concerning the supporting affidavit under Priyanka Srivastava and the absence of detailed reasons in the reference order.

Whether the alleged offences could be prosecuted under the IPC although the private complaint was filed after the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 came into force.

The Court recognised that the existence of a civil remedy does not, by itself, bar criminal proceedings, and that the same facts may give rise to both civil and criminal remedies.

It referred to Section 358 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, which saves the previous operation of the IPC and proceedings and remedies concerning offences committed under it; accordingly, the date of the complaint did not prevent reliance on the IPC for alleged conduct relating to the 2014 agreement.

It also noted Priyanka Srivastava v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2015) 6 SCC 287, and its requirement that an application invoking Section 156(3) CrPC be supported by a duly sworn affidavit, but did not decide the affidavit challenge separately.

The Court treated the agreement as the foundational document in both proceedings: the petitioners relied on it in the specific-performance suit, while respondent No. 2 alleged it was forged.

Although parallel civil and criminal remedies are not categorically barred, the Court considered criminal proceedings premature on these particular facts because the pending civil suit would determine whether the agreement had been executed by respondent No. 2.

The Court did not decide whether the agreement was genuine or forged, and found it unnecessary to separately determine the affidavit and reference-order objections.

It rejected the IPC-repeal contention because Section 358 BNS saved proceedings concerning alleged offences committed while the IPC was in force.

The order expressed no view on the agreement’s genuineness or on the merits of the civil suit; the civil court was directed to decide independently.

If that court finds the agreement forged or fabricated, respondent No. 2 may pursue remedies available in law.