Criminal proceedings cannot continue against relatives absent specific material showing conscious participation in the alleged offences.

The petitioners—Nilmani Singh and his sons, Nalin Kumar Singh and Niraj Kumar Singh—sought quashing of the order dated 16 November 2018 by which the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-VI, Saharsa rejected their discharge application.

The prosecution alleged that Sudha Singh, in conspiracy with her father and brothers, harassed the informant, attempted to oust her from family property, forged the signatures of the informant and her son on an affidavit/agreement, and sought to transfer control of a cinema hall.

It was further alleged that approximately ₹1.30 crore from the account of deceased Ashok Kumar Singh was transferred to Sudha Singh’s account, in which petitioner no. 3 was nominated, and that family properties were sought to be dealt with or transferred.

A charge-sheet was filed under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 504, 406, 471, 120-B, 384 and 34 of the IPC, and cognizance was taken.

The informant relied, inter alia, on an ICICI Bank statement showing a credit of ₹80,000 from Ashok Kumar Singh on 27 August 2013 and a debit of ₹70,000 described as “CASH PAID: NIRAJ KUMAR SINGH” on 12 September 2013.

The petitioners contended that the dispute was essentially a family and property dispute and that there was no specific material showing their conscious participation in forgery, cheating, misappropriation or conspiracy.

Whether the materials collected during investigation, taken at their face value, disclosed the essential ingredients of the alleged offences against the petitioners, including criminal conspiracy under Section 120-B IPC?

Whether the petitioners’ familial relationship with Sudha Singh, their alleged assistance in the cinema-hall affairs, and the bank entries concerning petitioner no. 3 constituted sufficient prima facie material to sustain the criminal proceedings?

Whether continuation of the criminal proceedings in the context of an underlying family and property dispute amounted to an abuse of the process of the Court warranting exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC?

The Court applied Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, under which the High Court may exercise inherent jurisdiction to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice, while exercising that power sparingly and without conducting a meticulous appreciation of evidence.

At the stage of discharge or framing of charge under Sections 239 and 240 CrPC, the Court must determine whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding or whether there is ground for presuming commission of an offence; however, the probative value of the evidence is ordinarily not to be assessed.

Under Section 120-A IPC, criminal conspiracy requires an agreement or meeting of minds between two or more persons to commit an illegal act or to accomplish a lawful act by illegal means; such agreement may be inferred from circumstances, but mere relationship, knowledge or association is insufficient, as explained in Yogesh @ Sachin Jagdish Joshi v. State of Maharashtra , (2008) 10 SCC 394.

The Court also relied on K.M. Mathew v. K.A. Abraham , (2002) 6 SCC 670, and State of M.P. v. Rakesh , (2004) 13 SCC 523, for the principle that the High Court should not ordinarily sift evidence or decide the ultimate merits under Section 482 CrPC.

At the same time, the Court held that Section 482 permits examination of whether the allegations, even if accepted at face value, disclose the basic ingredients of an offence against the particular accused.

The Court further relied on Bhikhubhai Govindbhai Patel v. State of Gujarat , 2026 SCC OnLine SC 915, Rikhab Birani v. State of Uttar Pradesh , 2025 SCC OnLine SC 823, and Anukul Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh , 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2060, for the principle that criminal proceedings cannot be used to give a criminal colour to an essentially civil or property dispute where the alleged criminal acts lack prima facie support.

The Court distinguished between evaluating the reliability of evidence—which is impermissible at this stage—and determining whether the allegations legally disclosed criminal participation by each petitioner.

The petitioners’ status as Sudha Singh’s father and brothers, and their alleged assistance in managing the cinema hall or dealing with family property, did not by themselves establish an agreement to commit an illegal act or the requisite meeting of minds for conspiracy.

As to petitioner no. 3, the bank statement showed a financial transaction involving him, including a ₹70,000 cash-payment entry, but did not disclose the purpose or criminal nature of the payment, his operation of Sudha Singh’s account, participation in the alleged forgery, or dishonest appropriation of funds.

The disputed cinema hall, land, bank funds and documents were found to be closely connected with rival claims concerning family property, succession and ownership, matters appropriate for determination by a civil forum.

Since no independent and specific material connected any petitioner with the alleged forgery, cheating, criminal breach of trust, misappropriation or conspiracy, continuation of the prosecution would amount to permitting criminal process to operate as pressure in a family/property dispute.

The familial relationship with Sudha Singh, alleged assistance in the cinema-hall affairs, nomination of petitioner no. 3, and the bank entries were insufficient to establish conspiracy or the substantive offences.

Accordingly, the order dated 16 November 2018 rejecting the petitioners’ discharge application, together with all consequential criminal proceedings against all three petitioners in Saharsa Sadar P.S. Case No. 898 of 2016, was quashed under Section 482 CrPC.

The application was allowed and the judgment was directed to be communicated to the trial court with the trial court record, if any.