The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for cautious interference in criminal proceedings at the initial stage and the requirement of sufficient time for police investigation before considering the quashing of a complaint/FIR.

JUDGMENT

Bharat P. Deshpande, J. - Rule. Rule returnable forthwith.

2. With consent of the parties, matter is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.

3. The Petitioners before this Court are challenging the FIR No.294/2020 registered at Mapusa Police Station/Respondent No.1 herein, at the instance of Respondent No.3 Mr. Mariano, for the offences punishable under Sections 419, 465, 466, 193, 200, 467, 468, 471, 472, 420 r/w Section 34 of IPC.

4. In a nutshell, it is the contention of the Petitioners that said FIR lodged by Respondent No.3 and registered by Respondent No.1 is clearly an abuse of the process of law, does not disclose any commission of cognizable offence qua the Petitioners, attempts to give criminal flavour to a civil dispute. With these submissions, the Petitioners prayed in the present petition for quashing of FIR No.294/2020.

5. Notice was issued to the Respondents and accordingly Respondent No.3 appeared and filed reply affidavit. Vide order dated 18.09.2021, Respondent No.1 was directed to furnish a report in sealed cover indicating briefly the particulars of material collected in the course of investigation in support of the complaint relating to forgery and other offences, if any, as well as comment on the prospect of filing of charge-sheet under Section 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

6. Respondent No.1 accordingly filed report in a sealed envelope.

On perusal of such report, it reveals that the Investigating Officer submitted about the progress of investigation and commented that some more documents are required to be verified. Therefore, in the report, there is nothing specific as to the offences relating to forgery and other offences qua the Petitioners and as to when the chargesheet will be filed.

7. The Petitioner before this Court claimed that he is a bonafide purchaser of the property from the erstwhile owner for value/consideration and he is in possession of the said property.

Petitioner purchased the said property vide sale deed dated 03.05.2019 from Ms. Diana Sylvia Fernandes and her husband Mr. Tomy Savio Fernandes, admeasuring 1,300 sq. mtrs., bearing Survey Nos.30/5 and 30/6 of Village Arpora, for a consideration of 65,00,000/- (Rupees Sixty Five Lakhs Only). The ? sale deed has been duly registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Bardez, Mapusa, Goa. From the date of purchase, Petitioner is in possession of the said property.

8. It is further contended by the Petitioner that somewhere in August, 2019, he received summons from the Civil Court, Mapusa in Special Civil Suit No.61/2019 filed by Respondent No.3 and 2 others. Along with the said notice/summons, a copy of ex-parte temporary injunction order was also served upon the Petitioner. Accordingly, he appeared before the Civil Court at Mapusa and placed all the relevant facts and documents. After hearing the Petitioner, the Civil Court vacated the ex-parte order. Thereafter, the Petitioner filed application for temporary injunction in the same suit praying to restrain Respondent No.3 herein from interfering with his possession of the suit property. The learned Civil Court at Mapusa decided both the injunction applications filed by the Petitioner and that of Respondent No.3 in the said suit. Vide order dated 09.01.2020 (Annexure - 'C'), the learned Civil Court, Mapusa, dismissed temporary injunction application filed by Respondent No.3 and allowed the temporary injunction application filed by the Petitioner thereby protecting his possession over the suit property. Respondent No.3 then approached this Court against the said order by filing Appeal from Order No.10/2020 wherein this Court vide order dated 05.02.2020 directed the parties to maintain status quo.

9. The Petitioner then contended that Respondent No.3 thereafter lodged a complaint with Mapusa Police Station dated 03.09.2020 basically alleging fraud against the predecessor-in-title of the Petitioner. However, in the said complaint, the Petitioner was arrayed as