Criminal proceedings quashed where a disputed sale deed merely cloaked a civil property dispute.

The complainant alleged that the petitioner, in concert with others, fraudulently executed a sale deed dated 15 July 1991 transferring 1.40 decimals of land claimed by the complainant under a family partition.

The complainant had sought cancellation of the sale deed in a civil title suit and later initiated criminal proceedings alleging, among other offences, conspiracy, cheating and forgery.

After the police submitted a final form, the protest petition was treated as a protest-cum-complaint.

The Magistrate rejected the petitioner’s application for discharge under Section 245 CrPC.

The petitioner challenged that order before the High Court.

1. Whether the Magistrate’s refusal to discharge the petitioner under Section 245 CrPC should be quashed where the dispute arose from the execution of a sale deed over land claimed by the complainant.

2. Whether continuation of the criminal proceeding, in light of the related civil dispute and the circumstances described by the Court, would amount to an abuse of the process of the court.

Section 245 CrPC provides the procedural basis for seeking discharge in a warrant case instituted otherwise than on a police report; the petitioner’s application was made under that provision.

The petitioner also relied on Section 464 IPC, concerning the making of a false document, and argued that its ingredients were not met.

The Court invoked the principle that criminal proceedings may be quashed where a civil dispute has been given a criminal character and continuation would constitute an abuse of process, referring to State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, and the other authorities cited in the judgment.

The Court did not separately analyse the elements of each alleged offence.

The Court considered the complainant’s central grievance to concern the petitioner’s execution of a sale deed over property in which the complainant claimed the petitioner had no share.

It noted that the complainant had pursued a civil suit seeking cancellation of the deed and that the police had submitted a final form before the protest petition proceeded as a complaint.

In those circumstances, the Court treated the prosecution as a civil dispute given a criminal cloak and concluded that its continuation against the petitioner would abuse the process of the court.

The application was allowed.