The central legal point established in the judgment is that the filing of an FIR with mala fide intentions and to convert a civil dispute into a criminal case can lead to the quashing of the FIR.

1. The petitioners who are accused Nos.1 and 2 in Cr.No.106/2016 of Tavarekere Police Station, have filed this petition for quashing of the FIR and all further proceedings.

2. The second respondent herein has filed FIR stating that her grand-father, on 07/04/2004, alleged to have executed a gift deed. This was not within the knowledge of the complainant. But during the pendency of the civil proceedings, she came to know about the same and it is stated that at that particular point of time, this girl i.e., the complainant (respondent No.2) was studying in II PUC and she was writing the examination. She stated that she had not gone to the Sub-Registrar’s office and put her signature. Therefore, she contends that her grand-father/Hanumanthappa was suffering from serious illness as on the date of the said gift deed and he has not executed any gift deed and in fact, accused Nos.1 and 2 who are the beneficiaries of the gift deed have concocted and forged the signature of the said Hanumanthappa and created such documents. As such, a criminal complaint came to be lodged and the same was registered on 15/3/2016 by the jurisdictional police for the offences punishable under Sections 415, 465, 468, 420 read with Section 34 of the IPC. The said registration of the FIR is called in question before this court.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners strenuously contends before the court that the document is of the year 2004 and the same is a public document registered before the Sub-Registrar Office, which bears the signature of the second respondent and that when the second respondent has admitted her signature, she only stated in the complaint that she did not go to the Sub-Registrar’s office and put her signature. But her signature is not denied in the document. Further, the said document is a registered document. When it is a public document, it is well within the knowledge of the petitioner, but the same has not been challenged nearly for a period fourteen years. He also contends that one Smt. Jayamma and four others including accused No.1 who is arrayed as plaintiff No.5 have filed a suit in O.S.No.6880/2011 for various reliefs i.e., for partition and separate possession of 1/7th share each and for declaration that the gift deed dated 22/12/2010 is not binding on the plaintiffs and directing the defendants to render accounts for the rent and profits received from the tenants and for other reliefs. The suit was filed on 21/09/2011. It is contended that the present complainant Asha is cited as third defendant in the said suit and she filed common written statement with other defendants and have not taken up any contention in the written statement with regard to the concoction or forgery of the said gift deed. It is also contended that they also filed counter claim petition on 06/08/2012. It is contended that in the said counter claim, there is absolutely no allegation of any forgery or any concoction of gift deed. The allegations are not so attractive in the said case with reference to the gift deed executed by the father of accused No.1. But abruptly after the suit being set down for evidence and the gift deed being marked by the court, the complaint came to be lodged for the purpose of harassing the petitioner and if possible to coerce the petitioners to come down for settlement etc. Therefore, learned counsel contends that it is an after thought of the second respondent to convert a civil dispute into a criminal case. Hence, he has filed FIR, which clearly amounts to abuse of process of law. He also contends that private vengeance of the parties is glaring on the face of the record, as the civil matter is pending before the civil court and issues have been framed, the burden is cast upon the fifth plaintiff and the complainant in the said case to establish their respective claims. Instead of establishing their case, fifth plaintiff and complainant have filed a false complaint. Therefore, such FIR is liable to be quashed.

4. Per