The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the legal principles to determine the ingredients of various offences under the Indian Penal Code and the power to quash criminal prosecution to prevent the abuse of the process of the court.

The petitioners, above named, have invoked the criminal writ jurisdiction of this Court for quashment of FIR bearing Mehus Police Station Case No. 24 of 2015, dated 01.09.2014 registered for the offences under Sections 420, 467, 471, 406, 506, 509 and 511 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. The prayer is on the ground that the FIR discloses no offence on its bare perusal.

3. According to First Information Report lodged by Sudha Devi/respondent no. 5, the informant had purchased land through registered sale deed dated 16.08.2012 appertaining to Plot No. 3411 under Khata No. 691, Area 6¼ decimals and in Plot No. 6640 under Khata No. 692, Area 57 decimals from Most. Mundrika Devi of village Mehus, district Sheikhpura. One Ram Naresh Singh sold away the same properties through registered sale deed dated 24.11.2015 in favour of petitioner no. 2 Lalit Vijay just to cheat and defraud the informant. Petitioners Chitranjan Kumar and Gautam Kumar are witness on the sale deed executed by Ram Naresh Singh and they are alleged to have conspired in creation of the subsequent sale deed. On being asked by the informant for their misdeed aforesaid the accused persons committed abuse, assault and attempted to outrage the modesty of the informant.

4. Petitioner no. 1 Vijay Kumar Singh is the father of petitioner no. 2 Lalit Vijay and two other petitioners are witness on the registered sale deed.

5. Submission of the petitioners is that the matter is purely of civil dispute and civil suits are already going on between the parties with respect to the same land. According to the petitioners Title Suit No. 39 of 2010 is going on in the Court of learned Sub-Judge, Sheikhpura in between Ram Naresh Singh the vendor of the petitioners and Mundrika Devi the vendor of the informant, since prior to purchase by the informant and the petitioners. After the aforesaid purchase, the petitioners have filed Title Suit No. 50 of 2015 against informant Sudha Devi. The informant/respondent no. 5 has remedy in the civil suit also. Further contention is that the allegation of commission of abuse and assault etc. are ornamental, just to pressurize in the land dispute. The occurrence, allegedly, took place on 20.12.2015 whereas the matter was reported on 30.12.2015 without any explanation for such delay. The next submission is that the petitioner no. 1 and 2 were not even present in the village on the alleged date of occurrence which would be evident from the reservation chart and boarding chart at Annexure-2.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State/respondents submits that the investigation of the case is already complete and charge-sheet has already been submitted and prima facie offence have been found true during investigation, hence, this Court should be reluctant to interfere in the matter.

7. Learned counsel for the respondent no. 5 besides adopting the aforesaid submission of the State-respondents submits that there is specific allegation of abuse and assault committed by the petitioners and to have chased her up to her house. Further contention is that the plea of alibi cannot be considered to quash the FIR. The civil remedy is no bar for criminal prosecution if the offences are made out for criminal prosecution as well.

8. In Md. Ibrahim & Ors. vs. State of Bihar & Anr. reported in 2009(8) SCC 751, the Apex Court had occasion to examine the ingredients of offences under Sections 420, 467, 471 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code. The Hon’ble Apex Court observed that “the condition precedent for an offence under Sections 467 and 471 is forgery. The condition precedent for forgery is making a false document (or false electronic record or part thereof). This case does not relate to any false electronic record. Therefore, the question is whether the first accused, in executing and registering the two sale deeds purporting to sell a property (even if it is assumed that it did not belong to him), can be said to have made and executed false documents, in collusio