Criminal proceedings for cheating under Section 420 IPC cannot proceed concurrently with civil suits regarding property disputes, highlighting the need for civil resolution of complex property rights.

ORDER :

SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM, J.

This petition is filed by the accused seeking quashing of the proceedings pending in C.C.No.26897/2024 on the file of the learned V ACMM Court, Bengaluru for the offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC.

2. Respondent No.2, the de facto complainant, has filed a private complaint on behalf of her son, Sandeep Yelamanchi. In the said complaint, it is alleged that the petitioners have unlawfully taken possession of certain properties that were allotted to her daughter-in-law, Kavya Krishna. It is contended that the petitioners orchestrated a fabricated and concocted registered Partition Deed dated 23.08.2017, which purportedly altered the lawful allotment of the properties. The complaint further asserts that, under the pretext of settling the joint family ancestral properties, the properties originally allotted to Kavya Krishna under the Partition Deed of 2015 were collusively shared between accused Nos.1 and 2. On this basis, a private complaint under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C has been lodged alleging that the petitioners cheated the complainant’s son, who is the son-in-law of petitioner No.1 (accused No.1).

3. Challenging the proceedings presently pending in C.C.No.26897/2024 before the learned V ACMM Court, Bengaluru, the petitioners seek quashing of the same on the ground that the dispute is essentially civil in nature. It is highlighted that the complainant’s son has already instituted a civil suit in O.S.No.927/2019, in which the validity of the registered Partition Deed executed between the petitioners and the husband of petitioner No.1 is under challenge. The petitioners contend that initiating a parallel criminal proceeding by invoking the police machinery is unwarranted and constitutes an abuse of the process of law. They, therefore, pray that this Court exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash the criminal proceedings.

4. On the other hand, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent-complainant has argued extensively, demonstrating that the petitioners—accused Nos.1 and 2 have deliberately attempted to usurp the properties allotted to Kavya Krishna. It is contended that the acts of the petitioners constitute a classic case of cheating under Section 4 20 of the IPC warranting a criminal trial. Reliance has been placed on the 2015 Partition Deed, particularly Schedule ‘D’, which indicates the details of the properties allotted to Kavya Krishna. Learned Senior Counsel asserts that the petitioners, taking advantage of Kavya Krishna’s untimely demise due to cancer in the United States, allegedly fabricated the 2017 Partition Deed and misrepresented facts to show that Kavya Krishna had died unmarried. Reference to the Death Certificate has been made to establish the petitioners’ intent to cheat at the inception. Further, reliance has been placed on precedents of the Co-ordinate Bench to demonstrate that in appropriate circumstances, civil and criminal remedies may simultaneously be pursued.

5. It is submitted that in the present factual matrix, the complainant’s son is entitled to maintain a civil suit challenging the alleged fraudulent Partition Deed while concurrently initiating criminal proceedings against the petitioners under Section 420 of the IPC. The learned Senior Counsel contends that the complainant’s son has correctly exercised his right to pursue both civil and criminal remedies simultaneously and therefore, this case does not merit quashing of the criminal proceedings at this stage.

6. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners as well