The court affirmed that civil disputes do not preclude the initiation of criminal proceedings based on allegations of forgery and that both can arise from the same facts independently.

JUDGMENT :

NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.

1. The present Writ Petition has been filed by the Petitioners under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “Cr.P.C.”) for quashing of FIR No. 0401/2023 dated 19.11.2023, registered under Sections 420 /467/468/471/34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as “ IPC ”) at Police Station Shaheen Bagh.

2. The impugned FIR was registered in compliance with the Order dated 17.11.2023 under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C., on an Application filed by Respondent No. 2/ Mr. Mirza Islam Baig, passed by the Ld. MM (South-East District), Saket Court, New Delhi, in CT Case No. 2971/2018.

3. The factual matrix indicates a long-standing family property dispute between Petitioner No. 1/Mr. Mirza Ibrahim Baig, about 78 years and his younger brother, Respondent No. 2/Mr. Mirza Islam Baig. The other Petitioners (Nos. 2 to 6) are the sons of Petitioner No. 1.

4. It is the case of the Petitioners that Petitioner No. 1 purchased the a plot of land measuring approximately 430 sq. yards situated at Plot No. 42- 43, Jasola Nala, Main Road, Abul Fazal Enclave, Okhla, New Delhi-110025 (“Suit Property”) in the year 1985, from his own funds, in the name of his wife and mother. On the other hand, Respondent No. 2 alleges that the property was purchased jointly by him and Petitioner No. 1 in 1985, from the Original Vendor/Jagan Singh.

5. It is submitted that on the basis of such false assumption, filed frivolous Complaint before the SHO, Police Station Jamia Nagar. However, considering the contents, the Police did not take any action.

6. Subsequently, Respondent No. 2 filed a Civil Suit C.S. No. 386/2010 for Permanent & Mandatory Injunction, against Petitioner No. 1 to restrain him from handing over possession of the Suit Property.

7. However, the Suit was dismissed by the Ld. Civil Judge, Saket Court, vide Order dated 06.01.2012, with the observation that the Plaintiff (herein Respondent No. 2) had concealed material facts.

8. Aggrieved, Respondent No. 2 challenged the dismissal in RCA No. 29/2012. The Ld. ADJ-01, South District, Saket Court, New Delhi, dismissed the Appeal vide Order dated 16.09.2013.

9. With mala fide intent, Respondent No. 2, through his wife Rehana, lodged a false and frivolous FIR bearing No. 140/2014 at Police Station Hauz Quazi under Sections 354 , 354A, 354B, 509, and 323 IPC against Petitioner No. 1 only. Pursuant the trial, despite his advanced age, Petitioner No. 1 was convicted vide judgment dated 28.05.2019. Aggrieved by the said judgment, Petitioner No. 1 has already preferred an Appeal, which is pending adjudication before the learned ASJ, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.

10. Respondent No. 2 also filed another Suit bearing C.S. (O.S.) No. 2075/2013, specifically seeking a Declaration and Cancellation of Documents regarding the Suit Property. This Suit is admitted by both parties, to be pending adjudication before the Ld. ADJ, South East, Saket Court.

11. It is further submitted that due to continuous harassment and intimidation by Respondent No. 2 and his family members, the petitioners were compelled to shift from their old residence to premises bearing No. N-42, N-Block, Abul Fazal Enclave, Part-I, Jamia Nagar, Okhla, New Delhi- 110025, from the year 2014 onwards. Thereafter, the Petitioners visited their old house only with utmost caution, as Respondent No. 2 and his wife kept a constant vigil over Petitioner Nos. 2 to 6.

12. Despite the pendency of the Civil Suit regarding the genuineness of the title documents, Respondent No. 2 filed a C