Criminal proceedings alleging property-document offences quashed where the dispute was purely civil and malicious.

The informant alleged that the petitioners had fraudulently created documents and executed two sale deeds dated 29 March 2016 concerning allegedly joint ancestral property, despite a prior civil court decree in the informant’s favour. The complaint alleged offences under Sections 420, 468 and 477 read with Section 34 of the IPC.

The complaint was forwarded under Section 156(3) CrPC, leading to registration of Udakishunganj P.S. Case No. 128 of 2016, G.R. No. 678 of 2016.

The petitioners contended that the dispute was essentially civil, as a title suit for partition and cancellation of the sale deeds had already been instituted on 30 June 2016, before the complaint was filed on 1 September 2016.

Petitioner No. 2, Shiva Devi, died during the proceedings, and the application was withdrawn as against her.

1. Whether the criminal proceedings arising from Udakishunganj P.S. Case No. 128 of 2016, based on allegations concerning disputed title and sale deeds, were essentially civil in nature and liable to be quashed.

2. Whether continuation of the criminal proceedings constituted an abuse of the process of the Court, particularly where the prosecution was allegedly instituted maliciously to exert pressure in an existing property dispute.

3. Whether the order dated 28 June 2018 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate issuing or continuing the criminal process was liable to be quashed against the surviving petitioners.

The Court considered the offences under Sections 420, 468 and 477 read with Section 34 IPC, relating respectively to cheating, forgery for the purpose of cheating, and falsification of accounts or records with common intention.

It relied on the principles governing quashing of criminal proceedings where the allegations are predominantly civil in nature and prosecution is malicious or oppressive, as recognised in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, particularly categories 1, 3 and 7 of paragraph 102.

The Court also relied on K. Subba Rao v. State of Telangana, (2018) 14 SCC 452, concerning abuse of criminal proceedings in matters essentially involving civil disputes.

Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate, (1998) 5 SCC 749, which holds that issuance of process is not mechanical and requires the Magistrate to apply judicial mind to whether a prima facie case exists.

The complaint had been forwarded for investigation under Section 156(3) CrPC.

The Court examined the allegations and found that they arose from a dispute over joint family property, partition, title and the validity of sale deeds.

The existence of the previously instituted title suit for partition and cancellation of the sale deeds indicated that the underlying controversy was civil in character.

Applying the principles in Bhajan Lal, K. Subba Rao and Pepsi Foods, the Court concluded that the criminal case had been initiated subsequently and was being used to exert pressure in the property dispute.

The allegations and surrounding circumstances therefore disclosed a malicious prosecution and continuation of the proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of the Court.

As against the remaining petitioners, the Court held that the dispute was predominantly civil and that continuation of the criminal proceedings would constitute an abuse of process.

Accordingly, the order dated 28 June 2018 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Udakishunganj, in Udakishunganj P.S. Case No. 128 of 2016, G.R. No. 678 of 2016, was quashed as against the petitioners, and the application was allowed.