Existence of civil dispute and lack of independent evidence for forgery justifies dismissal of criminal complaint.

The petitioner filed an unregistered complaint before the JMFC, Mauganj, alleging that the respondents (his brothers and others) fabricated a partition deed (Pulli) dated 29.09.2008 by forging the signatures of the petitioner and his deceased mother to grab joint family property.

The petitioner claimed he was on duty elsewhere and his mother was medically unfit at the time of the alleged execution.

The JMFC dismissed the complaint under Section 203 of the Cr.P.C. on 25.02.2014, citing the dispute as civil in nature.

The Revisional Court affirmed this dismissal on 03.07.2014.

1. Whether the courts below committed a patent illegality by dismissing the complaint under Section 203 Cr.P.C. on the ground that the dispute was essentially of a civil nature.

2. Whether the High Court should exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to interfere with the concurrent findings of the lower courts.

The court primarily applied Section 203 of the Cr.P.C., which empowers a Magistrate to dismiss a complaint if there is no sufficient ground for proceeding.

The court applied Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. regarding the High Court’s inherent powers, noting that such jurisdiction is limited and should only be exercised in cases of patent illegality, perversity, or manifest miscarriage of justice.

The court also considered sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) alleged by the petitioner, including Sections 147, 120-B, 420, 471, and 404.

The High Court observed that the JMFC had duly examined the complaint, statements recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., and the supporting documents before concluding that the dispute was a long-standing civil controversy regarding ancestral property partition.

The Court noted that the allegations of forgery were not supported by independent material sufficient to justify the issuance of process.

The court held that since the Revisional Court had already concurred with the Magistrate's findings, the scope of interference under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was narrow.

The petitioner’s request was essentially for a re-appreciation of evidence, which is impermissible in a Section 482 proceeding.

The court dismissed the petition and upheld the orders dated 25.02.2014 and 03.07.2014, thereby affirming the dismissal of the petitioner’s complaint.