Forgery proceedings may continue despite a civil dispute where the allegations require trial.

The complainant alleged that the petitioners created documents concerning disputed property, obtained a compromise decree in O.S. No. 170/2010, and thereafter transferred the property by sale and gift deeds.

Following a police investigation, a ‘B’ report was filed.

The complainant protested; after considering the protest, witness statements and documents, the Magistrate rejected the ‘B’ report, took cognizance of offences under Sections 463, 464, 465, 468 and 420 IPC, and issued process.

The petitioners sought to quash the proceedings under Section 482 CrPC, arguing, among other things, that the dispute was civil and that the complainant had already filed a civil suit.

Whether the Magistrate’s rejection of the ‘B’ report and issuance of process for the alleged offences warranted interference under Section 482 CrPC

Whether the pending civil dispute and the complainant’s civil suit made the criminal proceedings an abuse of process

The petition invoked the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC to quash the proceedings.

The alleged offences were under Sections 463, 464, 465, 468 and 420 IPC, concerning forgery and cheating.

The Court’s reasoning was that where the Magistrate has considered the complainant’s protest, sworn statements and supporting documents before rejecting a police ‘B’ report and issuing process, and the allegations raise factual questions requiring trial, the proceedings should not be quashed at that stage.

No precedent was cited.

The Court acknowledged that the parties disputed ownership of the property and that a civil suit had been filed.

However, it considered the allegation that documents had been created and used to transfer the property, including the sale and gift transactions following the compromise decree.

The Magistrate had considered the complaint materials and witness statements, applied judicial mind, and given reasons for rejecting the ‘B’ report and issuing process.

Because the alleged creation of documents and the parties’ conduct required factual examination at trial, the Court found no basis to interfere merely because the dispute also had a civil dimension.

It dismissed the petition challenging the proceedings in C.C. No. 590/2019, leaving the allegations to be determined at trial.