Specific allegations disclosing an offence warrant investigation; disputed facts cannot be resolved under Section 482.

Respondent No. 2 lodged a complaint alleging that the petitioner, a developer and power-of-attorney holder for certain landowners, conspired with others and planning authorities to obtain layout approval that included the complainant’s property, and then sold sites incorporating that property.

The complaint alleged wrongful gain and offences under Sections 465, 468, 471, 420 and 120B read with Section 34 of the IPC.

The petitioner sought to quash the complaint and FIR, arguing that he acted only as an attorney holder, that the dispute was civil, and that prior proceedings and subsequent planning documents showed the alleged overlap had been addressed.

The complainant opposed the petition, relying on the parties’ earlier joint memo, sale documents and other records, and maintained that the complainant’s property had been included and sold.

1. Whether the complaint and FIR should be quashed under Section 482 CrPC when they contain specific allegations of criminal conduct connected with the approval and sale of sites.

2. Whether the Court could determine, at the quashing stage, whether the disputed property was included in the approved layout or sold, in light of the competing documents and prior proceedings.

The Court considered its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC and the principle that, when deciding whether to quash an FIR, the Court examines the complaint’s allegations; if those allegations disclose an offence, the investigation should ordinarily proceed.

It relied on Dinesh Bai Chandu Bai Patel v. State of Gujarat, reported in (2018) 3 SCC 104, for the proposition that the truth of the allegations is for the investigating officer to determine.

The FIR invoked Sections 465, 468, 471, 420 and 120B read with Section 34 IPC.

The complaint specifically alleged that the petitioner participated in obtaining layout approval that included the complainant’s property and in selling sites incorporating it.

Although the petitioner relied on prior civil and administrative proceedings, the joint memo and later planning documents, the complainant disputed their effect and produced sale-related material.

The Court held that deciding whether the complainant’s property was in fact included or sold would require assessment of disputed facts and documents, which it could not undertake in a quashing petition.

Since the allegations warranted investigation, their truth or otherwise was left to the investigating officer.

The criminal petition was dismissed.