Civil dispute and criminal prosecution – Co-existence Paras 26–28 Held: (i) Civil and criminal liability may arise from same set of facts. (ii) Pendency or conclusion of civil proceedings does not bar criminal prosecution if ingredients of offence are disclosed. (iii) Civil adjudication cannot be treated as determinative of criminal culpability at quashing stage. (iv) Mere presence of civil element does not warrant quashing of criminal case. Reliance placed on: Kathyayini v. Sidharth P.S. Reddy To permit quashing solely because civil suit exists would enable accused to defeat criminal prosecution by instituting civil proceedings.

advocatemmmohan

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – S.482 – Quashing of criminal proceedings – Family property dispute – Civil adjudication vis-à-vis criminal liability – Forgery, cheating, use of forged documents – Delay in complaint – Mini-trial impermissible – High Court erred in quashing proceedings – Criminal case restored.

---

A. S.482 CrPC – Scope of inherent powers – Parameters

Paras 22–24

Held:

1. Jurisdiction under S.482 is extraordinary and to be exercised sparingly.

2. High Court must not conduct a mini-trial or assess credibility of allegations.

3. Only test: Whether uncontroverted allegations in FIR, taken at face value, disclose commission of cognizable offence.

4. Reliability or sufficiency of evidence is matter for trial.

Reiterated principles in:

• State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal

• Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra

---

B. Civil dispute and criminal prosecution – Co-existence

Paras 26–28

Held:

(i) Civil and criminal liability may arise from same set of facts.
(ii) Pendency or conclusion of civil proceedings does not bar criminal prosecution if ingredients of offence are disclosed.
(iii) Civil adjudication cannot be treated as determinative of criminal culpability at quashing stage.
(iv) Mere presence of civil element does not warrant quashing of criminal case.

Reliance placed on:

• Kathyayini v. Sidharth P.S. Reddy

To permit quashing solely because civil suit exists would enable accused to defeat criminal prosecution by instituting civil proceedings.

---

C. Allegations of forgery and cheating – Settlement deeds

Paras 25, 31

Complaint alleged:

• Abuse of advanced age and medical vulnerability of executants.

• Fraudulent execution and registration of settlement deeds.

• Fabrication and use of documents for wrongful proprietary gain.

Held:

Issues relating to:

• State of mind of executants,

• Role of accused in execution and registration,

• Fraudulent intent,

• Derivation of proprietary advantage

require full-fledged trial and evidence.

---

D. Delay in lodging complaint – Effect

Paras 29–30

Held:

1. Delay by itself is not ground for quashing at threshold.

2. Whether delay is explained or affects credibility is matter of evidence at trial.

3. High Court erred in assessing conduct of complainant at S.482 stage.

---

E. High Court’s Error

Paras 26, 30

High Court erred by:

• Treating civil court decree upholding settlement deeds as determinative.

• Conducting inquiry into complainant’s conduct and credibility.

• Entering into disputed questions of fact.

Such approach amounted to impermissible appreciation of evidence at pre-trial stage.

---

RATIO DECIDENDI

1. At the stage of quashing under Section 482 CrPC, the High Court must only examine whether the allegations in the FIR disclose a prima facie cognizable offence; it cannot evaluate evidence or determine disputed facts.

2. Civil adjudication on validity of documents does not automatically negate criminal prosecution for forgery, cheating or use of forged documents.

3. Delay in lodging complaint is not a standalone ground for quashing criminal proceedings at the threshold.

4. Where allegations require evidentiary adjudication, trial must proceed.

---

RESULT

Appeal allowed.
Impugned order of High Court quashing proceedings set aside.
Criminal case (C.C. No. 2 of 2023) restored for trial.

All merits left open for trial court determination.