The Supreme Court has allowed an appeal by setting aside the impugned High Court’s order, restoring the criminal proceeding arising from an allegation of forgery, cheating, or use of forged documents. The Court held that the High Court had exceeded its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC by evaluating disputed facts and treating the dispute as purely civil, despite the FIR disclosing prima facie criminal offences.
The case arose out of a family property dispute involving three registered settlement deeds executed between December 31, 2010 and March 30, 2012 by the appellant’s parents in favour of the elder son and his family members. Alleging that the settlement deeds were obtained by fraud, misuse of a Power of Attorney, impersonation and exploitation of the advanced age and medical condition of the executants, the appellant lodged a complaint in January 2020. After an order under Section 156(3) CrPC, FIR No. 229 of 2021 was registered for offences under Sections 417, 420, 465, 468, 471 and 120B IPC, and a chargesheet was filed, leading to registration of C.C. No. 2 of 2023 before the Special Court for Land Grabbing Cases, Chennai.
Thereafter, a family member challenged the same settlement deeds in a civil suit, but dismissed on an order dated January 24, 2023. Later, the Madras High Court quashed the criminal case, stating that it would be an abuse of process to allow the prosecution to continue.
The Division Benchcomprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra set aside the High Court’s impugned order, holding that section 482 of the Cr.PC is confined to the allegations on its face value and should be exercised with great caution. The Supreme Court also observed that the High Court erred in evaluating the merits of the allegations, drawing conclusions from delay, and using the outcome of civil litigation as a basis to terminate the criminal prosecution.
The Court emphasised that civil and criminal proceedings can coexist, and that a civil decree upholding documents does not preclude criminal prosecution where allegations of cheating or forgery are made. It further held that delay in complaining is not, by itself, a ground for quashing criminal proceedings at the threshold, as such issues are matters of evidence to be considered during trial. Observing that the FIR contained specific allegations of dishonest intention, fabrication, and wrongful use of documents, the Court concluded that the matter required a full-fledged trial.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court restored C.C. No. 2 of 2023for trial before the learned Special Metropolitan Magistrate-I, Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Land Grabbing Cases, Allikulam, Egmore, Chennai.
Appearance:
For Appellant(s): AOR G. Sivabalamurugan,
For Respondent(s): Sr. Adv S. R. Rajagopal with Sr. Adv Anand Tiwari, A.A.G. Purnima Krishna, AOR Aarthi Rajan, AOR Sabarish Subramanian, and Advocates Abhilasha Shrawat, Santanam Swaminadhan, Vidhusan C, Shanmitha, M. F. Philip, Karamveer Singh Yadav, Togin M. Babichen
