Criminal proceedings for cheating and forgery cannot be sustained when sale deed disputes are inherently civil.

The petitioners (Indu Devi and her husband) were accused of selling a plot of land to the informant's father in 2014.

The informant alleged that when he attempted to construct a boundary wall in 2021, he discovered the land belonged to someone else and that mutation in favor of his mother had failed.

An FIR (Ichak P.S. Case No. 156 of 2022) was registered for offences under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, and 120B of the IPC.

The petitioners produced unimpeachable evidence via a supplementary affidavit—specifically a mutation correction slip—proving that the land was indeed mutated in the name of the informant’s mother in "Register II".

The petitioners sought quashing of the FIR, chargesheet, and the cognizance order dated 23.11.2024.

1. Whether the allegations in the FIR constitute the criminal offences of cheating, forgery, or criminal breach of trust when the underlying dispute is essentially civil in nature.

2. Whether the continuation of criminal proceedings amounts to an abuse of the process of law given the existence of documentary evidence contradicting the informant's claim.

The Court primarily applied the penal provisions of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), specifically Section 420 (Cheating), Section 406 (Criminal Breach of Trust), and Sections 467/468 (Forgery), read with Section 120B (Criminal Conspiracy).

It relied on the principle that for an offence under Section 420, there must be evidence of deception from the inception of the transaction.

For Section 406, the sine qua non is the dishonest misappropriation of property.

The court applied the inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 of the CrPC to quash proceedings where a purely civil dispute is given a "cloak of a criminal case" to wreck vengeance.

The Court observed that the informant’s primary grievance—that mutation could not be completed—was factually incorrect and falsified by the mutation slip produced by the petitioners, the genuineness of which was not disputed by the State or the informant.

Regarding the forgery charges (Ss. 467, 468), the court found no allegation or evidence that the petitioners created any "false document".

Regarding cheating (S. 420), the Court held that since the sale deed was executed and consideration paid, and there was no evidence of fraudulent intent at the start of the 2014 transaction, the charge could not stand.

Regarding criminal breach of trust (S. 406), the Court noted that a completed sale transaction involving the receipt of money for land does not constitute dishonest misappropriation.

The Court concluded that the matter was a commercial/civil dispute involving an inordinate delay in filing, weaponized as a criminal prosecution.

The High Court allowed the petition and quashed the FIR (Ichak P.S. Case No. 156 of 2022), the chargesheet dated 12.03.2024, and the cognizance order dated 23.11.2024 passed by the JMFC, Hazaribagh.