Criminal Prosecution Cannot Be Used as a Tool to Coerce Settlement in Pending Civil Property Disputes

The petitioners (a 73-year-old widow and her elder daughter) sought to quash FIR No. 182/2025 registered under Sections 3(5), 318(4), and 336(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023

The complainant (Respondent No. 2, the younger daughter residing in Singapore) alleged that Petitioner No. 1 fraudulently transferred the khatha of the deceased husband’s property into her own name using a forged affidavit and signature while the complainant was abroad

Prior to filing the criminal complaint, Respondent No. 2 had already instituted a civil suit (O.S. No. 5900/2024) for partition and separate possession of the same estate, including the property and movable assets mentioned in the FIR

The petitioners alleged police harassment and stalking following the registration of the crime

1. Whether the registration and continuation of criminal proceedings constitute an abuse of the process of law when the dispute is primarily civil in nature and already pending before a Civil Court?

2. Whether the acts of a widow succeeding to her deceased husband’s estate and mutating municipal records amount to criminal offences under the BNS?

Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. (corresponding to Section 528 of the BNSS) regarding the inherent powers of the High Court to quash proceedings to prevent abuse of the process of law

The settled principle that criminal law cannot be used as a surrogate for civil remedies or as an instrument of pressure in private property disputes

The legal right of a widow to succeed to the estate of her deceased husband and perform necessary administrative mutations such as khatha transfers

The Court observed that the genesis of the litigation was a family inheritance dispute, not criminality

It noted that Respondent No. 2 had already invoked civil jurisdiction via O.S. No. 5900/2024, seeking a 1/3rd share of the exact same assets described in the FIR

The Court reasoned that a widow stepping into the shoes of her deceased husband regarding his estate is a recognized legal consequence, not an inherently unlawful act

The court found the timing of the FIR suspicious, appearing to be an attempt to coerce the elderly mother and sister into settling the partition suit

It highlighted that the criminal justice system must remain insulated from being deployed as a weapon of familial coercion, especially when the civil court is already seized of the matter

The Court allowed the petition and quashed the investigation in Crime No. 182/2025 pending before the VIII ACJM Court, Bengaluru

The Court clarified that the parties must resolve their proprietary rights through the pending civil suit and observed that the facts could potentially support a claim for malicious prosecution by the mother against the daughter