Quashing under Section 482 CrPC is unwarranted where FIR prima facie discloses cognizable offences and disputed facts require trial.

The petitioner sought quashing of FIR Crime No. 48/2022, registered at Police Station Baheria, District Sagar, for offences under Sections 419, 420, 467 and 468 of the IPC under the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (Section 528 BNSS).

The prosecution alleged that the petitioner and other applicants relied on a forged Mukhtyarnama purportedly executed by Mukundi Lal Patel and, on 10 October 2011, obtained registration of a sale deed for approximately 1,012 square feet from land situated at Mauja Gambhiriya, Laxminagar, bearing Khasra No. 364.

It was further alleged that the applicants acted in connivance, harassed Mukundi Lal Patel, and that the petitioner forcibly constructed a house on the disputed land.

The FIR was registered on 9 February 2022, after Mukundi Lal Patel’s death on 4 March 2013.

The petitioner contended that the FIR was false, motivated by prior enmity, and did not disclose the ingredients of the alleged offences, while the State argued that the FIR contained specific prima facie allegations and that the petition was premature.

1. Whether the FIR and material collected during investigation disclosed a prima facie commission of offences under Sections 419, 420, 467 and 468 of the IPC against the petitioner.

2. Whether the High Court should exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (Section 528 BNSS) to quash the FIR on the grounds of false implication, mala fides, disputed facts and absence of the alleged offences’ essential ingredients.

The Court applied Section 482 Cr.P.C., corresponding to Section 528 BNSS, which empowers the High Court to prevent abuse of the process of law and secure the ends of justice.

It considered the ingredients of offences under Sections 419, 420, 467 and 468 IPC relating, respectively, to cheating by personation, cheating and dishonest inducement, forgery of valuable security or authority to make such security, and forgery for the purpose of cheating.

The governing principle applied was that, at the stage of considering a quashing petition, the Court examines whether the allegations prima facie disclose a cognizable offence and does not conduct a detailed appreciation of evidence, evaluate the defence, or adjudicate disputed questions of fact.

The Court found that the FIR contained specific allegations connecting the petitioner with the alleged forged Mukhtyarnama and fraudulent sale transaction concerning the disputed land.

The allegations were not vague or omnibus and, on their face, disclosed the essential ingredients of Sections 419, 420, 467 and 468 IPC.

The petitioner’s claims of false implication, prior enmity, mala fides and innocence involved disputed factual matters and constituted matters of defence, which could not be conclusively determined in proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

Since the FIR disclosed cognizable offences and the investigation was pending, the Court held that quashing the proceedings at that stage would be inappropriate.

The Court further directed the State, considering that the matter had been pending since 2022, to file the charge-sheet before the concerned Court as soon as possible.