IMPORTANT POINT
Criminal charges cannot be sustained without clear evidence of criminal intent, especially in disputes primarily concerning civil rights.

ORDER :

Arun Monga, J.

1. Quashing of an FIR No.675/2023, dated 13.08.2023, registered at Police Station Pratapnagar, District Udaipur for alleged offences under Sections 420, 467, 468 & 471 of IPC and all consequential proceedings, is sought herein.

2. The petitioner/accused and the complainant are uncle & nephew and are involved in a dispute over the inheritance of estate of complainant’s late father.

2.1. Briefly, the relevant facts of the case are as follows: Respondent No. 2 – the complainant lodged the FIR stating that his late father was an ‘A’ class contractor. His uncle, the petitioner, an advocate, was managing his father's office. Since the father trusted his younger brother (petitioner – uncle of the complainant), he exploited this trust by obtaining signature of complainant’s father on blank papers and even stealing certain documents from the office. After his father's death, the petitioner claimed ownership of Plot No.C-3 and asked the complainant to vacate the property, threatening him with dire consequences. Upon enquiries, the complainant discovered that the plot had been purchased by his father from one Chandra Shekhar Brahmin on December 16, 1998, and that the petitioner had fraudulently substituted his name in place of complainant’s father on the documents.

3. In light of these facts, I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the complainant, and the learned Public Prosecutor.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that there were actually two plots, No. C-3 and C-4, purchased by both the brothers (petitioner & complainant’s father), respectively. Plot No.C-3 was purchased in the petitioner's name, but there was a typographical error in the sale agreement, which was later corrected. When the petitioner sought to register the title (patta) for Plot No. C-3, complainant’s father acted as a guarantor in the proceedings. However, the complainant, with the ill intention of taking over both plots, lodged the FIR in question.

4.1. The counsel further submits that the complainant falsely alleged that he discovered the forgery only after the petitioner threatened him. The counsel points out that the petitioner has already filed Suit No. 34/2007 in the court of Civil Judge (Junior Division) Udaipur against one Khem Singh for illegal construction, by virtue of which complainant was already aware that Plot No.C-3 belonged to the petitioner.

4.2. Additionally, he points out that even the petitioner lodged a cross FIR (No.686/2023) on August 17, 2023, but the police officials are not conducting an impartial investigation in the same. Therefore, the counsel argues that the present FIR is an abuse of police powers and ought to be quashed.

5. The learned counsel for the Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant would argue that no interference of this Court is warranted. They submit that once the FIR has been registered, the law will take its own course. Learned Public Prosecutor further adds that the investigation is at nascent stage and if subsequently, it is found that there is no criminal culpability attributed the petitioner, a favourable report will be filed before the competent court and therefore, this petition deserves to be dismissed.

5.1 Conversely, he would argue that in case the petitioner is found to have committed any offence, charge-sheet will be filed in accordance with law.

6. Having heard and perused the case file and the contents of the FIR, I am of the view that the central issue between the two in this case is a family property dispute, which is fundamentally a civil matter concerning inheritance and ownership. The FIR alleges forgery of documents related to the estate of the complainant's late without disclosing and particulars. The inter se rights of the parties herein are to be adjudicated based on documentary evidence, legal title, and the applicable inheritance laws. Criminal law cannot be invoked to resolve civil disputes. Using the criminal justice s