Criminal proceedings are not barred solely by the existence of civil disputes if allegations prima facie disclose cognizable offences.

Respondent No. 2 (complainant) filed a criminal complaint (No. 3854/2024) alleging that while she was the registered owner of a flat, Applicant No. 1 (her relative/estranged family) forged a rent deed portraying himself as the owner.

On 11.06.2025, the IIIrd ACJM, Dehradun, summoned Applicant No. 1 (u/s 406, 448, 467, 471 IPC), Applicant No. 2 (u/s 448 IPC), and Applicant No. 3 (u/s 406 IPC).

The applicants challenged this via a Revision Petition (No. 192/2025), which was dismissed by the Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Dehradun on 19.07.2025.

The applicants then moved the High Court under inherent jurisdiction, contending that the dispute was civil/matrimonial in nature, the original rent deed was not produced, and Section 160 Cr.P.C. was violated.

1. Whether the summoning order was vitiated due to the non-production of the original rent deed at the complaint stage.

2. Whether the non-compliance with the proviso to Section 160 Cr.P.C. renders the summoning order illegal.

3. Whether the pending civil proceedings regarding the cancellation of the sale deed preclude the initiation of criminal proceedings for the same transaction.

The Court applied the principles governing the summoning of accused persons under the Code of Criminal Procedure, emphasizing that at the stage of taking cognizance, the Magistrate must only determine the existence of a prima facie case rather than conducting a meticulous appreciation of evidence.

It further relied on the doctrine that criminal proceedings are not barred simply because a dispute has a civil or matrimonial flavor, provided that the allegations disclose the essential ingredients of cognizable offences under the Indian Penal Code, such as Section 406 (Criminal breach of trust), Section 448 (House-trespass), Section 467 (Forgery of valuable security), and Section 471 (Using a forged document as genuine).

The Court reasoned that the High Court's inherent jurisdiction should not be exercised to interfere with a summoning order if the Magistrate has applied their mind to the complaint, witness statements, and the police inquiry report.

Regarding the missing original rent deed, the Court held that the evidentiary value and genuineness of documents are matters for trial and cannot be used to quash a case at the threshold.

The Court dismissed the procedural objection regarding Section 160 Cr.P.C., noting it did not go to the "root of the matter" since sufficient material otherwise existed to proceed.

The Court rejected the "civil nature" argument, clarifying that the pendency of a civil suit for cancellation of a sale deed does not immunize a party from criminal prosecution if the acts alleged—such as forging a rent deed—constitute independent criminal offences.

It held that a prima facie case was established against the applicants based on the material available on record.

The Court dismissed the criminal misc. application, affirming the summoning order dated 11.06.2025 and the revisional order dated 19.07.2025.