Court’s Decision
The Supreme Court quashed a criminal complaint pending since 2002 against four women accused of forging a will to deprive the complainant of property rights. The Court observed that the continuation of criminal proceedings would serve no purpose, particularly when the complaint was evidently a tactic to misuse criminal law for private vendetta. It held: “The instant case is just another one in a string of cases filed in recent years that seek to disguise a civil dispute as criminal.” The appeal was allowed, and all criminal proceedings in the case were quashed.
Facts
The case originated from a family dispute over inheritance. One Ram Baksh Dubey, troubled by the alcoholic behavior of his third son, executed an unregistered will dated 23 December 1993, bequeathing his movable and immovable properties to his four daughters-in-law. These women were the accused-appellants.
After the testator’s death on 3 January 1994, the third son, Ashish Kumar, sold his alleged share in the property to the complainant (Respondent No. 1) through a registered sale deed dated 25 April 1994.
Unaware of this sale deed, the accused filed for mutation of property based on the unregistered will. The Tehsildar passed a favorable order on 27 September 1994. When the complainant interfered with their possession, the accused filed a civil suit seeking injunction. The trial court granted an interim injunction against the complainant on 30 July 1997.
Subsequently, in 2001, the complainant filed a criminal application alleging conspiracy and forgery of the will to circumvent the 1994 sale deed. Though the police submitted a closure report, the magistrate converted it into a complaint case. Summons were issued, and the accused sought quashing under Section 482 CrPC before the Allahabad High Court, which rejected the plea in 2019, leading to the present appeal.
Issues
- Whether a criminal complaint alleging forgery of a will can be sustained when the dispute essentially pertains to civil property rights?
- Whether the continuation of such criminal proceedings constitutes abuse of process of law?
- Whether the ingredients of offences under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code were satisfied?
Petitioner’s Arguments
Counsel for the accused argued that the complaint was nothing but a malicious attempt to settle a civil property dispute through criminal proceedings. It was submitted that the will was executed in 1993 before the testator’s death and that the complainant had never challenged the will or the mutation order in any forum. Furthermore, it was pointed out that the objection to the mutation had been rejected in 1998 and no appeal was filed thereafter.
Relying on R.K. Vijayasarathy v. Sudha Seetharam and Anand Kumar Mohatta v. State (NCT of Delhi), it was submitted that the High Court ought to have exercised its inherent jurisdiction to quash proceedings that are civil in nature but disguised as criminal offences. It was emphasized that none of the offences under IPC sections 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 were even prima facie made out.
Respondent’s Arguments
On the other hand, counsel for the complainant submitted that the High Court had rightly refused to quash the proceedings, since the allegations in the complaint clearly disclosed ingredients of the alleged offences. It was contended that whether the will was forged or not was a matter of trial, and the High Court had correctly declined to interfere under Section 482 CrPC.
Analysis of the Law
The Court began by recapitulating the scope of Section 482 CrPC and the legal framework for quashing criminal proceedings. It cited the landmark decision in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, especially paragraph 102, sub-clauses (1), (3), (5), and (7), which outline circumstances under which a criminal proceeding may be quashed, such as:
- When allegations do not prima facie constitute any offence.
- When the allegations are absurd or improbable.
- When proceedings are maliciously instituted with a view to harass.
It also discussed the statutory elements of the IPC provisions invoked—Sections 419 (cheating by personation), 420 (cheating and dishonest inducement), 467 (forgery of valuable security or will), 468 (forgery for purpose of cheating), and 471 (using forged document as genuine).
Precedent Analysis
The Court relied heavily on the following precedents:
- State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal: Provided the legal template for quashing proceedings, particularly when allegations are baseless or mala fide.
- Inder Mohan Goswami v. State of Uttaranchal: Reiterated that criminal law should not be used as a tool of harassment. Emphasized the importance of intention in offences like cheating and forgery.
- Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre: Emphasized that when chances of conviction are bleak, the criminal process should not be allowed to continue.
- R.K. Vijayasarathy v. Sudha Seetharam: Held that the court should be vigilant to see whether a civil dispute is being given a criminal colour.
- Anand Kumar Mohatta v. State (NCT of Delhi): Held that Section 482 CrPC can be invoked when proceedings are clearly an abuse of process.
- Vishal Noble Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh: Highlighted that courts must prevent criminal proceedings from being used to settle private scores.
- State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy: Recognized that courts must quash proceedings if continuation would amount to abuse of process.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court held that the allegations against the appellants, who were only legatees under the will, did not meet the ingredients of any of the offences alleged. It found that the complaint had been filed only after the complainant failed to succeed in civil proceedings, including rejection of objections and counter-claims.
The Supreme Court found the delay of seven years after the mutation order and four years after the interim injunction order to be telling. The complaint was clearly filed as an afterthought to give criminal colour to a failed civil claim.
The Court concluded: “It is writ large on the face of the record that the complaint case has been employed as a circuitous tool to abuse the process of law, especially after the complainant failed to pursue the remedies available to it.”
Conclusion
Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order and quashed the criminal complaint and proceedings pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Basti. The Court noted that continuation of such proceedings would be futile and an abuse of the judicial process. It, however, clarified that its observations would not impact any pending civil disputes.
Implications
This judgment sends a strong message that the criminal justice system cannot be weaponized to settle civil scores. It reinforces the principle that allegations in criminal complaints must be scrutinized with care, especially when civil disputes form the core of the controversy. The ruling further strengthens the jurisprudence on the cautious and sparing use of criminal law in private disputes.
Cases Referred
- State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335: Cited as the leading authority on when to quash criminal proceedings.
- Inder Mohan Goswami v. State of Uttaranchal, (2007) 12 SCC 1: Used to explain ingredients of Sections 420 and 467 IPC.
- Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre, (1988) 1 SCC 692: Cited to emphasize that civil disputes should not be given criminal colour.
- R.K. Vijayasarathy v. Sudha Seetharam, (2019) 16 SCC 739: Cited for reinforcing the limits of criminal law in civil disputes.
- Anand Kumar Mohatta v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2019) 11 SCC 706: Emphasized abuse of criminal proceedings.
- Vishal Noble Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1680: Highlighted courts’ responsibility to curb misuse.
- State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy, (1977) 2 SCC 699: Cited for inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC.
FAQs
Q1. Can a civil property dispute be pursued through criminal law if forgery is alleged?
No. The Supreme Court has clarified that criminal law should not be used to settle civil disputes unless clear ingredients of criminal offences are established.
Q2. What is the standard for quashing proceedings under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code?
The Court must be satisfied that the complaint is baseless, malicious, or filed with ulterior motives. If the ingredients of the offence are not prima facie met, proceedings can be quashed.
Q3. What are the implications of this judgment on similar cases pending before courts?
This judgment reinforces the need for courts to scrutinize criminal complaints based on civil disputes, and provides clear precedent for quashing such cases to prevent abuse of process.