Important points:
" A person is said to make a false document or record if he satisfies one of the three conditions as noticed hereinbefore and provided for under Section 464 I.P.C.
" In order to attract the offence of forgery, it is imperative that a false document is made and the accused person is the maker of the same.
" If what is executed is not a false document, there is no forgery. If there is no forgery, then neither Section 467 nor Section 471 of the Code are attracted.
" A civil remedy does not foreclose the right of the aggrieved party to approach the criminal court with a complaint setting out allegations disclosing commission of criminal offences. But, if the allegations contained in the complaint taken on their face value do not constitute any of the offences alleged, the High Court shall not hesitate to quash the criminal proceedings. When the dispute relates to immovable property is basically or essentially of a civil nature and when it is given the colour of criminal offences, the accused cannot be made to undergo the ordeal of a trial in a criminal court. Criminal proceedings are not a short cut of other remedies available in law.

Can immovable property be the subject matter of commission of an offence of criminal breach of trust which is defined under Section 405 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC')? This question incidentally arises for consideration in this petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code').

2. The first petitioner is the father of the second petitioner. They are the first and the second accused in the case registered as Crime No.467/2013 of the Ponkunnam police station under Sections 406, 466, 467, 471 and 120B I.P.C. The aforesaid case was registered on the basis of the complaint filed by the second respondent in the Magistrate's Court concerned which was forwarded to the police under Section 156(3) of the Code for investigation. This petition under Section 482 of the Code is filed for quashing the first information report (Annexure-A1) in the case.

3. The material averments in the complaint (AnnexureA2) filed by the second respondent (hereinafter referred to as 'the complainant') are as follows: The complainant is a member of Kalathur tharavad. The first petitioner is also a member of that family. Partition of the properties of the aforesaid tharavad took place in the year 1101 (M.E) as per the document registered as 1416 of the Sub Registrar's Office, Kanjirappally. The property having an extent of 6.11 acres, which is shown as item No.1 in the partition deed, was set apart as a common property in the nature of a trust for conducting certain divine and charitable acts as prescribed in that document. There is stipulation in the partition deed as to how the income from this property shall be used. It is the eldest member of the family who is empowered to manage the aforesaid property as a trustee. The property stood in the name of Kerula Panicker who was the eldest member of the family. The first petitioner had been managing the property from the year 1970 onwards as a trustee for the other members of the family. In order to grab this property, the petitioners entered into a conspiracy with the then Village Officer of Elamgulam Village and they erased the name 'Kerula' in the thandaper register and substituted the name of the first petitioner as the owner of the property. Thereafter, the first petitioner executed and registered a settlement deed as document No.3269/2006 in favour of the second petitioner, his daughter, gifting her the aforesaid property. Execution of the settlement deed by the first petitioner in favour of the second petitioner was in violation of the stipulations contained in the partition deed. The petitioners have committed the offences punishable under Sections 406, 466, 467, 471 and 120B I.P.C.

4. Heard Sri. K. Gopalakrishna Kurup, learned Senior Advocate who appeared for the petitioners and Sri. Alex M. Scaria, learned counsel for the second respondent/complainant and also the learned Public Prosecutor.

5. Learned Senior Counsel Sri. K. Gopalakrishna Kurup has submitted that it is doubtful whether immovable property can be the subject matter of the offence of criminal breach of trust. He has also contended that the averments in the complaint do not make out the offences alleged against the petitioners.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel Sri. Alex M. Scaria has contended that the court has to accept each of the allegations made in the complaint as correct on its face value for the purpose of determining whether the ingredients of the offences alleged are made out or not. He has submitted that this Court would not be justified in invoking the power under Section 482 of the Code to quash the first information report so as to strangulate the investigation at the inception. Relying upon various decisions of the Apex Court, he has contended that it is not within the power of the High Court, in a petition filed under Section 482 of the Code, to delve deep into disputed facts and to embark upon appreciation of evidence.

7. One of the offences all