Mutation based on a registered gift deed, absent fraudulent conduct, did not disclose criminal offences.

Respondent No. 2 alleged that she and petitioner No. 1 were sisters and that, after their mother’s death, they were both entitled to inherit a site originally allotted to their father and later conveyed to their mother.

She alleged that the petitioners had fraudulently changed the property’s khata by filing a false affidavit before the BBMP.

The police registered Crime No. 277/2023 against the petitioners under Sections 120B, 420, 193, 197, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC.

The petitioners sought quashing under Section 482 CrPC, relying on a registered Gift Deed executed by their mother in petitioner No. 1’s favour.

Notice to respondent No. 2 was returned with an endorsement that no such person resided at the stated address.

Whether the allegations and material on record disclosed the ingredients of offences under Sections 120B, 420, 193 and 197 IPC against the petitioners.

Whether continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioners warranted quashing under Section 482 CrPC.

The Court considered Section 482 CrPC, which permits the High Court to quash criminal proceedings where their continuation would amount to an abuse of the process of law.

It also considered Sections 120B, 420, 193 and 197 IPC, concluding that the offences were not attracted in the circumstances presented.

As to Sections 193 and 197 IPC, the Court stated that the BBMP authority, before which the alleged false affidavit or evidence was given, had to lodge a complaint or initiate the necessary action; a complaint by respondent No. 2 alone could not sustain those offences in this case.

The Court noted that the mother had executed a registered Gift Deed in petitioner No. 1’s favour and that the BBMP mutated the khata on the strength of that deed after the mother’s death.

On that record, it found that the allegation of fraudulent mutation did not support the asserted offences under Sections 120B and 420 IPC.

It further held that the alleged offences under Sections 193 and 197 IPC could not be invoked on respondent No. 2’s complaint, as the relevant authority had to lodge a complaint or take the necessary action.

The Court therefore considered continuation of the proceedings an abuse of process.