Section 482 quashing is unwarranted where disputed property inclusion in a sale agreement requires trial.

Respondent No. 3 filed a private complaint alleging that the petitioners had included land allotted to him in a partition in their names through allegedly created documents and had entered into an agreement to sell that land.

The complaint was referred to the police, who investigated and filed a charge sheet.

The petitioners sought to quash the proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, arguing, among other things, that the dispute was civil in nature and that the sale agreement concerned only their own shares.

The partition deed showed allotments to the complainant in Survey Nos. 4, 5 and 6; the sale agreement also referred to those survey numbers, though in different extents.

Whether the criminal proceedings, including the FIR and charge sheet, should be quashed under Section 482 CrPC on the ground that the dispute was civil and the petitioners had no prima facie criminal case to answer

Whether the documents on record, particularly the partition deed and agreement of sale, disclosed a matter requiring determination at trial rather than quashing at the threshold

Section 482 CrPC preserves the High Court’s inherent power to prevent abuse of the process of a court and to secure the ends of justice.

The Court’s reasoning proceeded on the basis that quashing was not appropriate where the material on record disclosed a prima facie accusation and the disputed factual question—whether the complainant’s land had been included in the agreement of sale—required determination at trial.

No precedent was cited in the order.

The Court compared the partition deed with the agreement of sale.

The deed recorded that land in Survey Nos. 4, 5 and 6 had been allotted to the complainant, while the agreement of sale also included those survey numbers, albeit in different extents.

This documentary material, together with the specific allegations of document creation and transfer of the land, raised a factual question about whether the complainant’s property had been included in the sale agreement.

The Court held that this question could not be resolved in proceedings under Section 482 and had to be decided after trial.

It declined to quash the charge sheet and related proceedings, holding that the material disclosed a prima facie case and that whether the complainant’s land was included in the agreement of sale was a matter for trial.