Criminal prosecution for forgery and fraud is maintainable despite the dispute having civil overtones.

The applicants sought to quash an FIR registered under Sections 406, 420, 506(2), 465, 467, 468, 471, 120B, and 114 of the IPC.

The complainant alleged that the accused persons conspired to defraud her husband of ancestral land.

Under the pretext of resolving a family partition dispute, the primary accused allegedly induced the husband—who was illiterate—to sign documents at the Collector’s office.

While the husband believed he was securing his share of the land, the accused allegedly executed a sale deed in favor of applicants nos. 3 and 4 for ₹1.42 crores.

Investigations revealed that although funds were deposited into the husband's account, they were immediately withdrawn by the accused through cheques and ATM transactions.

1. Whether the criminal proceedings against the applicants should be quashed on the grounds that the dispute is civil in nature and involves a bona fide property purchase.

2. Whether the delay in filing the FIR and the existence of a registered sale deed merit the exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC (Section 528 BNSS) to set aside the investigation.

The court applied Section 528 of the BNSS (formerly Section 482 of the CrPC) regarding the inherent powers of the High Court to prevent abuse of the process of law.

Lalmuni Devi v. State of Bihar and M. Krishnan v. Vijay Singh, establishing that a dispute having a civil nature does not preclude criminal prosecution if the facts disclose elements of forgery and cheating.

Somjeet Mallick v. State of Jharkhand and Rocky v. State of Telangana, which mandate that inherent powers should be used sparingly and that FIRs should not be quashed if a prima facie cognizable offence is disclosed.

The court reasoned that the materials collected during the investigation, including statements from 26 witnesses, indicated a coordinated effort by the accused to grab valuable land.

It observed that the applicants were aware of the husband’s ownership yet paid significant sums to a third-party accused rather than the owner.

The court noted that the financial trail showed the sale consideration was siphoned back to the accused parties, suggesting the transaction was not a bona fide sale but a fraudulent "guise".

The court found that because the husband was illiterate and misled about the nature of the documents he signed, the allegations of forgery and criminal conspiracy required a full trial rather than a "mini-trial" at the quashing stage.

The court concluded that the presence of a commercial or civil element does not shield the applicants from criminal liability when fraud is alleged.

The application for quashing the FIR was dismissed, and the Rule was discharged.