Quashing of criminal proceedings – Scope and limits While exercising inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC, the High Court is required to examine only whether the uncontroverted allegations, taken at their face value, disclose commission of a cognizable offence. The High Court cannot conduct a roving inquiry, assess credibility of allegations, or record findings on disputed facts. (Paras 21–24, 30–31) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 417, 420, 465, 468, 471, 120B Forgery and cheating – Prima facie allegations – Trial required Where the complaint alleges abuse of authority, fraudulent execution and use of documents, and dishonest intention at the inception of the transaction, the ingredients of offences relating to cheating and forgery are prima facie disclosed, warranting trial.

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 482

Quashing of criminal proceedings – Scope and limits

While exercising inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC, the High Court is required to examine only whether the uncontroverted allegations, taken at their face value, disclose commission of a cognizable offence. The High Court cannot conduct a roving inquiry, assess credibility of allegations, or record findings on disputed facts.
(Paras 21–24, 30–31)

---

Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 417, 420, 465, 468, 471, 120B

Forgery and cheating – Prima facie allegations – Trial required

Where the complaint alleges abuse of authority, fraudulent execution and use of documents, and dishonest intention at the inception of the transaction, the ingredients of offences relating to cheating and forgery are prima facie disclosed, warranting trial.
(Paras 25, 31)

---

Civil dispute and criminal liability – Co-existence

The existence, pendency, or even adjudication of civil proceedings on the same subject-matter does not bar criminal prosecution when the allegations disclose criminal intent and offences under the IPC.
(Paras 26–28)

---

Section 482 CrPC – Effect of civil court findings

Findings in civil proceedings upholding the validity of documents are not determinative of criminal culpability at the stage of quashment, particularly when issues of mens rea, forgery, or deception were not adjudicated in the civil suit.
(Paras 26–27)

---

Delay in lodging complaint – Effect

Delay in initiating criminal proceedings by itself is not a ground for quashing at the threshold. Whether the delay is explained or affects the credibility of prosecution is a matter for appreciation at trial.
(Para 30)

---

Abuse of process – High Court’s approach

Quashing criminal proceedings solely on the basis of conduct of the complainant, alleged suppression of facts, or delay amounts to exceeding jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC, when the FIR discloses a prima facie offence.
(Paras 29–31)

---

ANALYSIS

1. Nature of the dispute

The criminal proceedings arise from allegations of fraud, cheating, and forgery relating to three registered settlement deeds executed during the lifetime of the original owners, allegedly by abusing their advanced age and vulnerability.
(Paras 4–8, 25)

---

2. High Court’s reasoning

The High Court quashed the proceedings primarily on the grounds that:

• the dispute was civil in nature,

• settlement deeds had been upheld in a civil suit,

• the appellant remained ex parte in civil proceedings, and

• there was delay in lodging the criminal complaint.
  (Paras 12, 29)

---

3. Supreme Court’s scrutiny

The Supreme Court held that the High Court travelled beyond permissible limits of Section 482 CrPC by:

• evaluating the conduct of the complainant,

• drawing adverse inferences from delay, and

• treating civil adjudication as conclusive of criminal liability.
  (Paras 24, 29–30)

---

4. Civil and criminal proceedings distinguished

The Court reiterated that civil and criminal proceedings operate in distinct domains, and that adjudication of civil rights does not preclude criminal prosecution when allegations of fraud and forgery exist.
(Paras 26–28)

---

5. Necessity of trial

Issues relating to mental state of executants, misuse of power of attorney, existence of dishonest intent, and use of allegedly forged documents require full-fledged trial on evidence, and cannot be summarily decided under Section 482 CrPC.
(Para 31)

---

RATIO DECIDENDI

1. High Courts, while exercising inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC, must confine themselves to examining whether the allegations in the FIR or complaint, taken at face value, disclose commission of a cognizable offence, without assessing credibility or disputed facts.

2. Civil proceedings and criminal prosecution can coexist; civil adjudication upholding the validity of documents does not, by itself, bar prosecution for offences such as cheating or forgery.

3. Delay in filing a criminal complaint, or the complainant’s conduct in related civil proceedings, cannot be treated as grounds for quashing criminal proceedings at the threshold.

4. Where allegations disclose fraudulent intent, misuse of authority, and fabrication or use of forged documents, criminal proceedings must be allowed to proceed to trial.