Point of law : Court is empowered to exercise the inherent power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. The petitioner is not disclosing in what capacity he is claiming or asserting the right and what is his locus standi but he is initiating proceedings after proceedings without substantiating his status or right in any Civil Court.

ORDER :

The petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the FIR registered in Crime No.84/2019 on the file of the Netaji Nagar Police Station, Raichur for the offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 34 of IPC.

2. The brief facts leading to the case are that the petitioner No.1 is the son of Nageshwar Rao while petitioner No.2 is the son of late Bheemanna who is the brother of Savarappa and petitioner No.3 is the brother of late Bheemanna and uncle of late Savarappa while petitioner No.4 is the son of Savareppa. Petitioner No.4 is the son of Savareppa born to his first wife Vijayalakshmi. It is the further case that Savareppa has obtained divorce from his first wife and then contracted second marriage with Jayashree. It is further the case that both Savareppa and his second wife Jayashree died in a road traffic accident on 01.05.2009. That the respondent No.2 is the son of the other brother of Savareppa by name Narasimhalu; that the father of respondent No.2 Narasimhalu died prior to 2009 and the respondent No.2 has lodged a complaint on 26.12.2019 claiming that after the death of Savareppa and his wife Jayashree, the petitioners have taken certain amount from NEKRTC by impersonating the present petitioner No.4 as their son and by filing an affidavit the amount was drawn. It is also alleged that from second marriage of Saverappa with Jayashree, they did not have any issues and they have also obtained Heirship Certificate by showing that the petitioner No.4 is the legal heir of Saverappa. Hence, he lodged a complaint for initiation of the action. On the basis of the complaint, the investigating officer has issued FIR in crime No.84/2019 for the offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC. Being aggrieved by this order, the petitioners have filed this petition for quashing the FIR and complaint on the ground that it is an abuse of process of law.

3. Heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsels for the respondents.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that admittedly Saverappa is the father of the petitioner No.4 born to the first wife Vijayalakshmi which is undisputed. Further he would submit that he had no issue with second wife Jayashree and the second wife Jayashree is his step mother. He would submit that in no way the respondent No.2 becomes class-I heir of the Saverappa and whatever compensation is obtained is legal one. Further he would also contend that after delay of 10 years this false complaint came to the lodged and civil litigation is still pending. He would further submit that the Succession Certificate is issued in favour of the present petitioner No.4 and the Heirship Certificate issued by the competent authority and in any event the respondent No.2 does not become class-I heir of the deceased Saverappa. He would further submit that in 2015 itself regarding forgery of the signature of Saverappa for cancellation deed a complaint was filed by petitioner No.4 and since the petitioner No.4 is class-I heir the brothers and the children of the brother of Saverappa does not inherit any property. He would also invite the attention that Saverappa admittedly died on 01.05.2009 but the cancellation deed was got executed in his name on 07.09.2011 which is created by respondent No.2 and the complaint is already pending. He would further submit that the Heirship Certificate and the Succession Certificates were issued by competent authorities and they can be only challenged by way of civil litigation and question of forgery does not arise at all. He would also submit that the present complainant/respondent No.2 is asserting his right on the basis of the alleged Will or gift deed but that itself is in dispute and it is not tested in any Court of law and it is not a registered one. Hence, he would submit that the filing of the complaint is an abuse of process of law tha