Criminal proceedings cannot be sustained where alleged sale-deed forgery rests solely on disputed title.

The petitioners challenged the order dated 05.05.2016 by which the Judicial Magistrate, Khagaria, took cognizance in G.R. No. 2211 of 2014, arising from Gogri P.S. Case No. 221 of 2014, for offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 379, 387/34 and 120-B of the IPC.

The prosecution allegation was that petitioner nos. 1 to 3, in connivance with petitioner nos. 4 and 5, executed a forged sale deed in favour of petitioner nos. 4 and 5 in respect of land allegedly belonging to opposite party no. 2/informant.

A civil dispute concerning title to the land was already pending in Title Suit No. 134 of 2014 before the Sub-Judge-I, Khagaria, in which the disputed property, including land bearing Khata No. 149 and Khesra No. 44 under Tauji No. 582, was included in the schedule.

The petitioners contended that the criminal case had been instituted to exert pressure in the pending civil dispute and to compel withdrawal of the sale deed.

1. Whether the criminal proceedings and the order taking cognizance could be sustained where the principal dispute concerned the parties’ competing title to land and the validity of a sale deed, which was already the subject matter of a pending civil suit.

2. Whether the allegations disclosed offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 379, 387/34 and 120-B of the IPC, or constituted an abuse of the criminal process warranting exercise of the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction.

3. Whether the criminal proceedings could be maintained before the competent civil court adjudicated the parties’ title and determined whether the sale deed was fraudulent.

The Court considered the offences alleged under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 379, 387/34 and 120-B of the IPC.

It applied the principle that disputes primarily concerning title to immovable property and the validity of a sale deed are ordinarily matters for determination by a competent civil court, and that a criminal prosecution cannot be used merely to settle a civil or title dispute.

The Court relied on State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, particularly the categories permitting quashing where the allegations, even if accepted in their entirety, do not prima facie constitute an offence, or where the proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fides and instituted with an ulterior motive.

The Court further held that a sale deed could not be characterised as fraudulently executed solely on the basis of a competing claim of title until the competent civil court adjudicated the parties’ rights and granted appropriate relief.

The Court found that the substance of the dispute was the informant’s assertion that the land belonged to him, notwithstanding the sale deed executed by petitioner nos. 1 and 2 in favour of petitioner nos. 4 and 5.

Since the same property and competing title claims were already involved in Title Suit No. 134 of 2014, determination of whether the executants possessed title or authority to transfer the property required adjudication by the civil court.

In the Court’s view, the allegation that the sale deed was forged was founded principally on the informant’s assertion of ownership; it did not, in the circumstances, independently disclose a sustainable criminal case.

The institution of the FIR therefore appeared to be an attempt to use criminal proceedings to resolve or pressure the parties in a civil title dispute, attracting the principles in Bhajan Lal concerning abuse of process and proceedings instituted with an ulterior motive.

Accordingly, the order taking cognizance dated 05.05.2016 in G.R. No. 2211 of 2014, arising from Gogri P.S. Case No. 221 of 2014, was quashed, and the application was allowed.

The informant was granted liberty to file or lodge an appropriate criminal case if the civil court ultimately found that the sale deed had been fraudulently executed by petitioner nos. 1 and 2.