Criminal proceedings cannot continue where a property dispute discloses no prima facie forgery, cheating, or breach of trust.

The complainant claimed rights in ancestral agricultural lands at Village Ranasan, Gandhinagar, and alleged that, after the death of Sarlaben, her husband Lalluji Bhaijiji Thakor fabricated an affidavit and pedigree document showing persons from his second wife’s branch as Sarlaben’s legal heirs.

On the basis of those documents, civil proceedings and RTS appeals were instituted concerning the land.

It was further alleged that Lalluji executed powers of attorney in favour of the applicants and that, pursuant to the alleged conspiracy, a sale deed/acknowledgment of sale was executed for Rs.14,00,000 in respect of part of the disputed land.

The FIR, registered as C.R. No. I-218 of 2015 at Sector-7 Police Station, Gandhinagar, invoked Sections 406, 420, 465, 467, 468, 470 and 120-B of the IPC.

The applicants sought quashing under Section 482 CrPC, contending that they were merely a power-of-attorney holder, witness, or family member; that the dispute was essentially civil; that the sale consideration was received by the vendor; and that there was an unexplained delay in lodging the FIR.

Civil Suit No. 141 of 2010 and related RTS appeals were already pending.

1. Whether the allegations in the FIR, taken at face value, disclosed the ingredients of criminal breach of trust, cheating, forgery, use of forged documents, and criminal conspiracy against the applicants?

2. Whether the criminal proceedings constituted an abuse of process because the dispute was predominantly civil in nature and was already the subject of civil litigation?

3. Whether the High Court ought to exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC to quash the FIR and consequential proceedings?

The Court exercised its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, corresponding to Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice.

It applied the principles in 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 constitute an offence, where the allegations are inherently improbable, or where the proceedings are manifestly mala fide.

The Court held that Section 420 IPC requires deception, dishonest inducement, and dishonest intention at the time of inducement; Section 406 requires entrustment followed by dishonest misappropriation; forgery offences under Sections 465, 467, 468 and 470 require the making or use of a false document with the requisite criminal intent; and Section 120-B requires an agreement to commit an illegal act or to accomplish a lawful act by illegal means.

The Court found that the allegations primarily concerned competing claims of succession, pedigree entries, mutation records, and title to ancestral property, all of which were already being contested in civil proceedings.

It held that the applicants’ alleged roles as a power-of-attorney holder or attesting witness did not, on the stated facts, establish entrustment of the complainant’s property or dishonest misappropriation under Section 406 IPC.

The registered power of attorney, cheque-based transaction, and receipt of consideration by the vendor did not disclose deception or dishonest inducement of the complainant sufficient to attract Section 420 IPC.

The Court further concluded that the disputed pedigree and affidavit reflected contested civil claims and that no specific fabrication of a seal, signature, or public record attributable to the applicants was shown to constitute forgery.

Since the substantive offences were not prima facie established, the allegation of criminal conspiracy also could not independently survive.

The five-year delay in lodging the FIR, despite the complainant’s knowledge of the civil proceedings, and the alleged suppression of earlier property transactions reinforced the Court’s conclusion that the criminal case was being used as pressure in a civil dispute.

It allowed both applications and quashed FIR C.R. No. I-218 of 2015 registered with Sector-7 Police Station, Gandhinagar, together with all consequential proceedings, insofar as they related to the applicants.

Rule was made absolute, with the clarification that the observations would not affect the independent adjudication of the pending civil suit on its merits.