Section 482 quashing is unwarranted where allegations disclose offences and disputed facts require trial.

The complainant alleged that her brother, Petitioner No. 1, misused their father’s deteriorating health and control over his finances to arrange property transactions and procure a Will that excluded her from the family estate.

The allegations concerned a sale deed dated 17 October 2018, an agreement to sell dated 26 March 2019, a general power of attorney dated 12 April 2019, and a Will dated 5 November 2019.

The complainant alleged that her father lacked the capacity to understand the documents and that the petitioners had concealed relevant transactions.

An FIR was registered under Sections 420, 406, 467, 471 and 120-B of the IPC after the complainant applied under Section 156(3) CrPC.

The petitioners sought quashing under Section 482 CrPC, contending that the dispute was civil and that the documents were validly executed.

During the petition, a charge-sheet was filed, charges were framed and prosecution evidence began before the Trial Court.

1. Whether the allegations, taken at face value, disclosed a prima facie basis to proceed against the petitioners for the alleged offences

2. Whether the petitioners had established grounds under Section 482 CrPC to quash the FIR and consequential proceedings, including on the basis of the materials they relied upon

Section 482 CrPC confers inherent power to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice; it must be exercised sparingly, and a quashing court must not conduct a mini-trial or decide disputed facts.

Under State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, proceedings may be quashed in specified categories, including where the allegations, accepted at face value, disclose no offence, or where the proceedings are manifestly mala fide; the power is to be exercised with circumspection.

Under Rajiv Thapar v. Madan Lal Kapoor, accused-produced material may justify quashing only where it is sterling and impeccable, rules out the prosecution’s assertions, is not refuted or cannot justifiably be refuted, and continuation would amount to abuse of process.

CBI v. Aryan Singh confirms that, at the quashing stage, the court asks whether sufficient material exists to proceed, not whether the charges have been proved.

Further, under Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander, the existence of a civil claim does not, by itself, bar criminal proceedings where the allegations also disclose an offence.

The Court found that the allegations of cheating, forgery, misrepresentation and criminal breach of trust, if accepted at face value, were neither absurd nor inherently improbable and provided a prima facie basis to proceed.

The petitioners’ reliance on medical records, communications and property documents raised disputed factual questions; those materials had been filed before the High Court during the petition and had not yet been tested at trial.

They did not meet the Rajiv Thapar standard for material capable of conclusively displacing the allegations.

Given that charges had been framed and prosecution evidence was underway, assessing credibility or evidentiary weight would improperly require a mini-trial.

The family and property context did not negate criminal liability where the allegations could also constitute cognizable offences.

It dismissed the petition and pending applications without costs; its observations were limited to the quashing petition and were not to affect the Trial Court proceedings.