Existence of related civil disputes does not bar criminal prosecution if allegations disclose cognizable offences.

The petitioners, Mohit and Shankar Kerketta, purchased 1 acre of land (Khasra No. 296/1) via a registered sale deed in 2021 for Rs. 99,22,500/-.

Respondent No. 2, a member of the Church of Christ Mission in India, filed an application under Section 156(3) of the CrPC, alleging the land was actually a graveyard ("Isai Kabristan") worth over Rs. 4 crores and that the sellers had no authority to alienate it.

Following a Magistrate's order, an FIR was registered, a chargesheet was filed, and the Trial Court took cognizance and framed charges under Sections 403, 405, 420, 465, 466, 467, 468, 471, and 120B of the IPC.

The petitioners' revision against the framing of charges was dismissed by the Sessions Court on 29.01.2026.

The petitioners moved the High Court under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, seeking to quash the entire criminal proceedings.

1. Whether the criminal proceedings, arising from a transaction the petitioners claim is purely civil and bona fide, are liable to be quashed under the inherent powers of the High Court?

2. Whether the existence of a civil dispute or prior civil court judgments regarding the nature of the land automatically bars criminal prosecution for fraud and forgery?

The Court applied Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 482 of the CrPC), which grants inherent powers to the High Court to prevent abuse of process or secure the ends of justice.

It relied on precedents including Pradeep Kumar Kesharwani v. State of U.P. (2025) and Gulam Mustafa v. State of Karnataka (2023), which establish that while civil-colored disputes can be quashed, such power must be exercised sparingly.

The court also applied the principle that criminal proceedings are not barred simply because a civil remedy exists, provided the allegations disclose a prima facie cognizable offence.

The petitioners argued they were bona fide purchasers and that revenue records/civil decrees (Civil Suit No. 22A/2013) proved the land was not a graveyard.

However, the Court observed that at the quashing stage, it cannot conduct a "meticulous examination" or "detailed appreciation" of evidence to resolve disputed questions of fact.

The Court found that the allegations in the chargesheet—concerning the unauthorized sale of graveyard land and the undervaluation of property—disclosed a prima facie case involving criminal conspiracy and fraud.

The High Court reasoned that whether the petitioners had knowledge of the land’s status or whether the sellers were competent to execute the deed are matters of trial, not summary adjudication.

The Court held that since a prima facie case was established by the investigation and chargesheet, the matter requires a full trial.

It clarified that its observations would not prejudice the parties during the trial and that the petitioners are free to raise all defenses before the trial court.

The Court affirmed that the inherent jurisdiction to quash proceedings must be used only when no offence is made out even if allegations are taken at face value, which was not the situation here.