Prosecution for fraudulent resale cannot be quashed where charge-sheet material raises triable factual issues.

The petitioners, arrayed as accused Nos. 3 and 4, sought to quash proceedings in C.C. No. 50208/2019 arising from Crime No. 358/2017, for alleged offences under Sections 418, 419, 420, 468, 471, 447, 448, 120B and 34 IPC.

The complainant alleged that the petitioners’ mother had executed a GPA and sale agreement in favour of Ramathilak, who sold Site No. 15 to the complainant in 1990; the petitioners later joined their mother in executing a sale deed in favour of Sagayaraju in 2003, allegedly concerning property already conveyed to the complainant.

The petitioners denied criminal involvement, relying on the cancellation of the GPA, the civil nature of the dispute and their alleged lack of knowledge of the earlier transaction.

After investigation, the police filed a charge sheet against them.

Whether the criminal proceedings against the petitioners should be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. on the ground that the dispute was civil in nature and the allegations did not disclose their involvement in the alleged offences.

Whether the petitioners’ disputed defences concerning the GPA, their knowledge of the earlier sale and their role in the later transaction could be determined in a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

Section 482 Cr.P.C. empowers the High Court to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice, but disputed factual defences are ordinarily matters for trial.

The court applied the principle in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, that criminal proceedings may be quashed in appropriate cases, including where they are brought to wreak personal vengeance.

It also relied on Dineshbhai Chandubhai Patel v. State of Gujarat, (2018) 3 SCC 104, for the principle that the investigating officer’s duty is to investigate and unearth the truth.

The petitioners’ reliance on Anukul Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 948, concerning a dispute of purely civil character, was distinguished on the facts.

The alleged conduct was charged under Sections 418, 419, 420, 468, 471, 447, 448, 120B and 34 IPC.

The court found that the charge-sheet material disclosed an earlier sale to the complainant, executed by the GPA holder before the GPA was cancelled, followed by a later sale deed executed by the petitioners and their mother in favour of Sagayaraju.

The alleged later transaction and subsequent dealings in the property provided a basis for the investigating officer to include the petitioners in the charge sheet; their participation in the later sale deed was not disputed.

Whether the petitioners knew of the earlier sale, and whether the property descriptions and transactions established fraud, involved disputed facts unsuitable for resolution under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

The court therefore distinguished Anukul Singh and found that the case could not, at that stage, be treated as merely civil or as prosecution motivated by personal vengeance.

It left the petitioners’ defences to be raised before the trial court and directed that the trial court not be influenced by the High Court’s observations when deciding the case on its merits.