Criminal prosecution cannot be thwarted at the initial stage merely because civil proceedings are pending. The inherent power to quash proceedings should be exercised sparingly and only when the allegations, even if taken at their face value, do not prima facie disclose the commission of an offence.

1. This petition is filed by petitioners/accused No.1, 2 and 4 to 6 filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code praying this Court to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.23/2016 (P.C.No.14/2012) pending on the file of the learned Prl. Senior Civil Judge and J.M.F. C, Jamkhandi for the offences punishable under Sections 467, 468, 471, 474, 120B read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code as against the petitioners herein.

2. Brief facts of the prosecution case as narrated in the private complaint filed by the complainant one Jayawant S/o Kalasappa Kale. The complainant who is the natural brother of the accused No.1 Mr. Suresh, so also the deceased Susheelabai, according to the complainant himself and his sister Susheelabai were running partnership business under the name and style of M/s.Prashant Hotel in property bearing CTS No.5325 which was purchased by Smt. Susheelabai on 09.02.1983. The complainant and Smt. Susheelabai in their capacity as partners of the aforesaid firm raised loan of Rs.14,00,000/- from the Karnataka State Financial Corporation, for the purpose of construction of commercial complex on the property CTS No.5325, which was given security for the said loan. As per the further averments in the complaint, complainant has cleared the said loan and obtained no due certificate from Karnataka State Financial Corporation on 07.08.2002 and property in CTS No.5325 which was reconveyed in favour of the firm has been subsequently registered in his name and he has been collecting rent from the shops and residential units in the said complex. Smt. Susheelabai owned lands bearing R.S.No.64 and 6/4 measuring 24 acres, 38 guntas and 31 guntas respectively in Shiraguppi village and plot bearing No.24 in R.S.No.48 of Jamkhandi. Smt. Susheelabai had suffered paralysis on the right side of her body and complainant was taking care of her and was looking after the affairs of the partnership firm as well as the property of the Smt. Susheelabai. Smt. Susheelabai died on 13.08.2011, while under going treatment at S.D.M. Medical college and hospital Dharwad. As per the contentions of the complainant she died intestate. The further averments in the private complaint goes to show that complainant learnt that two applications were filed seeking mutation of the aforesaid properties, one by accused No.1 in C.C.No.23/2016, Mr.Suresh, who relied upon the Will said to have been executed by Smt. Susheelabai on 16.04.2008 and registered on 24.11.2011 and another by Smt. Rekha who is the accused in another private complaint No.13/2012 by relying upon the Will dated 24.03.2008 and another rectification Will dated 20.07.2009. Looking to the materials it is come on the record that said Smt. Rekha and other accused preferred Criminal Revision Petition No.46/2016 before the Court of Sessions Judge Bagalkot seeking quashing of the order dated 26.05.2016 passed in P.C.No.13/2012 by learned JMFC Jamkhandi. According to complaint accused No.1 colluded with other accused persons No.2 to in creating the Will dated 16.04.2008 by forging the signature of deceased Smt. Susheelabai on faith bond paper, subsequently registered the same before the sub-registrar Jamkhandi on 24.11.2011. Complainant said to have secured the expert opinion by sending the alleged Will along with admitted signatures of Smt. Susheelabai to the Truth Lab Foundation, which has reported that signature in the Will not tallied with the admitted signatures of Smt. Susheelabai. The further averments also go to show, the materials relied upon by the complainant, that police have filed the ‘B’ report in P.C.No.14/2012. Complainant has filed protest petition to the ‘B’ report, Court below on consideration of the documents and the statement of complainant by order dated 26.05.2016 has observed that there is a prima facie case made out by the complainant against accused No.1 to for the alleged offences and ordered for registration of the case. Subsequently the Court below, on the