IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that civil disputes should not be cloaked as criminal offences, and quashing is warranted when no prima facie case exists.

ORDER :

The instant petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973[for short ‘Cr.P.C’] has been filed by the Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 to 4, seeking quashment of proceedings against them in Crime No.487 of 2020 on the file of Renigunta (U) Police Station, Tirupati Urban registered for the offences under Sections 420 and 468 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code,1860[for short ‘IPC’].

2. The facts of the case, in brief, are as follows:

a. One Sri Raghavadas Bavaji, executed a last Will on 11.02.1949 in favour of one Sri Sukul Ramanadha Sharma, who is the father-in-law of Respondent No.2. Thereafter, said Raghavadas Bavaji died on 17.10.1952. Accused No.1, who is not the legitimate daughter of said Raghavadas Bavaji, without having any right, sold his vast extent of properties to third parties. Accused No.1 also tried to alienate the other properties of said Raghavadas Bavaji by a fabricated Will alleged to have been executed by him in her favour on 16.10.1952. After coming to know the same, Respondent No.2 filed O.S.No.454 of 2012 on the file of the Court I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Tirupati which was decreed in favour of Respondent No.2 declaring the Will dt.16.10.1952 as void and also by granting injunction restraining Accused No.1 and her son from alienating the properties in favour of third parties. During pendency of the said suit, Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 to 4 created Registered Sale Deeds dated 23.07.2014 by impersonation as if they were executed by Accused No.1 in their favour. As such, Respondent No.2 herein examined Accused No.1 as D.W.1 in O.S.No.454 of 2012, and during cross examination, Accused No.1 herein deposed that she sold some of their properties during the life time of her husband and subsequently, she has not sold any properties and that no case was pending before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirupati with regard to their properties and she has not filed any cases at Hyderabad and she does not know the details of the cases.

b. The application submitted by Respondent No.2 to the Tahsildar for issuance of Ryotwar patta in their favour, was rejected. As such, Respondent No.2 preferred an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirupati and the same was allowed on 03.09.2014 directing the Tahsildar, Tirupati Rural to issue ryotwari patta in their favour and against the said orders, W.P.No.27679 of 2014 on the file this Court was preferred by Accused No.1, which is contrary to her statement in her cross examination in O.S.No.454 of 2012.

c. Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 to 4 have created the sale deeds alleged to have been executed by Accused No.1. Petitioners, who are the scribe and attestors of the alleged sale deeds, by colluding with each other, fabricated the documents. As such, Respondent No.2 lodged the present complaint against Accused Nos.1 to 4.

Grounds Sought for Quashment:

3. Being aggrieved by the registration of the said crime, Petitioners/ Accused Nos.2 to 4 filed the present petition seeking quashment of the proceedings against them on the following grounds.

a. The allegations made against the Petitioners do not constitute any offence against the Petitioners.

b. There are no ingredients of cheating in the complaint to attract the offence under Section 420 IPC against the Petitioners.

c. Without getting the admitted and the disputed signatures on the alleged sale deeds determined through a competent Court, Police cannot register a case for the offence under Section 468 IPC.

d. Civil disputes are going between the parties in respect of the subject property since long time and having failed to get any favourable orders, Respondent No.2 resorted to the present criminal complaint to pressurize the Petitioners to come to her tunes.

e. The execution of the alleged sale deeds was in the year 2014, whereas, the present complaint has been lodged in the year 2020, as such, there is an inordinate delay in lodging the FIR. Therefore, continuation of proceedings against the Petitioners is an abu