The main legal point established in the judgment is that an FIR disclosing a cognizable offense cannot be quashed, even in cases involving civil disputes and allegations of criminal offenses.

JUDGMENT

Vibhu Bakhru, J. - The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, praying that the FIR bearing No. 339/2020 under Sections 420/468/471 & 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter "IPC") registered with PS Hauz Khas be quashed.

2. The said FIR was registered at the instance of respondent no.2, who is the father of the petitioner.

3. The FIR in question was registered on 05.08.2020. This was pursuant to several complaints made by respondent no.2. The first such complaint was made on 31.10.2019. In his complaint, respondent no.2 stated that he owned 25% shares in Hotel Colonia Santa Maria, Calangute, Goa [Sic Rect. Colonia Santa Maria Hotels Pvt. Ltd. - hereafter "CSM"]. He alleged that the said shares had been forcibly taken away by his daughter - Mrs Seema Kukreja (the petitioner herein). He alleged that his daughter had "coercively, aggressively and deceitfully obtained my [his] signature on blank sheets of papers / printed sheets of papers and taken away my [his] shares". He alleged that the petitioner used to come to his residence and his office and forcefully take away his share certificates, documents and other valuable papers. He stated that he was going to file a case for recovery of his share certificates in respect of 25% of the total equity of CSM. He also stated that he had a flat in London and the same had been coercively taken away from him by his daughter by forcing him to sign a gift deed. In addition, he stated that the petitioner had also taken away by force and deceit his ancestral jewellery including several diamond sets; twenty-five ancient silver coins and a rare Indian Dollar coin. He stated that he had a bank account with Coutts Bank Ltd. in London which had over 20 lacs GBP but the account had been frozen due to wrong and wilfully misleading representation made by his daughter.

4. Respondent no.2 sent another letter dated 01.02.2020 to the SHO, PS Hauz Khas, in furtherance of his complaints made earlier. He alleged that he was being harassed and tortured by his daughter, her husband and his wife, who he claimed had been brain washed by his daughter and son-in-law. He alleged that they had illegally grabbed his assets and were making further efforts to fraudulently grab more of his assets. He alleged that the petitioner had a history of forging his signatures and she had "forcibly/ coercively/ stealthily" taken away his shares in CSM in active connivance with her husband. He stated that his wife (Mrs Daya Prakash) had keys to all the cupboards of the house, where the valuables and documents are kept. He stated that "on basis of forged and fabricated signatures my [his] shares were forcibly/ deceitfully transferred in the name of Mrs Seema Kukreja". He also alleged that they had grabbed his other assets in London and elsewhere.

5. Respondent no.2 states that on 04.02.2020, he filed yet another complaint alleging that the petitioner had forged documents to transfer his shares in CSM in her name. He alleged that he had become aware that his signatures were forged on (i) the gift deed; (ii) the rear side of the share certificates bearing no. 2524, 2526, 2503, 2505, 2504, 2506 and 2507 endorsing the transfer of the said share certificates in favour of the petitioner; and (iii) the share transfer forms.

6. The initial complaint made by respondent no.2 was entered as DD No. 35B, with PS Hauz Khas. On 09.07.2020, the concerned police official from PS Hauz Khas issued a notice to the petitioner calling upon her to provide self-attested copies of (i) share transfer deed from respondent no.2 to her; (ii) gift deed in respect of the share transferred; and (iii) share certificates of respondent No.2 bearing his signatures and endorsement on the rear side. It was stated that the said notice was issued in view of respondent no.2''s complaint that the petitioner had committed acts of cheating/forgery causing wrongful loss to the complainant.

7. The petitioner responded to the said notice and forw