The court has the inherent power to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice, and criminal proceedings should not be permitted to continue if the dispute is purely civil in nature and can only be ascertained through evidence by a competent civil court.

Headnote:
Abuse of Process - Criminal Proceedings - Sections 420, 468, 471, 506, 120B IPC - R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab AIR 1690 SC 866 - State of Haryana and others Vs. Bhajan Lal and others 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 - M/s. Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra and others [AIR 2021 Supreme Court 1918] - Parbatbhai Aahir alias Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and others Vs. State of Gujarat and another (2017) 9 SCC 641 - Kapil Agarwal and others Vs. Sanjay Sharma and others (2021) 5 SCC 524 - Indian Oil Corporation Vs. NEPC India Limited and others (2006) 6 SCC 736 - M. Subramaniam and another Vs. S. Janki and another (2020) 16 SCC 728 - Inder Mohan Goswami and another Vs. State of Uttaranchal and others (2007) 12 SCC 1
Fact of the Case:

The complaint was filed against the applicants under Sections 420, 468, 471, 506, 120B IPC based on the allegation of a forged Will. The mutation proceeding ended in favor of the applicants after hearing both parties, and the complainant did not challenge the order. The dispute was of a civil nature, and the complainant did not challenge the Will in any civil court.
Finding of the Court:

The criminal proceedings were an abuse of process and used as a weapon of oppression against the applicants. The court quashed the Complaint Case No. 2439 of 2012 and summoning orders.
Issues: Abuse of process, nature of the dispute, challenge of the Will in a civil court.
Ratio Decidendi: Criminal proceedings should not be permitted to continue if the dispute is purely civil in nature and can only be ascertained through evidence by a competent civil court. The court has the inherent power to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice.
Final Decision: The proceedings of the complaint case and summoning orders were quashed.

JUDGMENT :

1. Despite service of notice upon opposite party no.2, nobody appeared on behalf of opposite party no.2.

2. Heard Sri N.K. Singh, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Arvind Kumar, learned AGA for the State.

3. The instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants to quash the Complaint Case No. 2439 of 2012 dated 05.07.2011 under Sections 420, 468, 471, 506, 120B IPC pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Farrukhabad as well as summoning order dated 19.09.2012 and order dated 03.11.2015 passed by revisional court in Criminal Revision No. 308 of 2012.

4. The necessary facts of the case for the purpose of present application is that opposite party no.2, the complainant on 05.07.2011 filed impugned criminal complaint against the applicants and Raj Bahadur Singh (not applicant), the father of applicant no.1 with the allegation that opposite party no.2 is the son-in-law of Vijay Bahadur Singh, the brother of Raj Bahadur Singh (not applicant) and his marriage was performed with the youngest daughter of Vijay Bahadur Singh. It is further alleged in the complaint that Raj Bahadur Singh (not applicant) with intention to grab the property of father-in-law of opposite party no.2 executed a forged registered Will of Vijay Bahdur Singh (father-in-law of opposite party no.2 and brother of Raj Bahdur Singh) on 30.11.2000 in favour of his grand sons, namely Rohit Bhadauriya and Mohit Bhadauriya under the guardianship of applicant no.2 (daughter-in-law of Raj Bahadur Singh), the mother of Rohit and Mohit. In the complaint dated 05.07.2011 it is further alleged that in the registered Will dated 30.11.2000, applicant nos. 3 and 4 were witnesses and opposite party no.2 came to know about the forged Will dated 30.11.2000 only when mutation proceeding was started and when he made a request from Raj Bahadur Singh and applicants to cancel the forged Will dated 30.11.2000 of Vijay Bahadur Singh then they refused to cancel the same and when opposite party no.2 tried to lodge the FIR then police did not lodge his FIR, therefore, he filed impugned complaint on 05.07.2011.

5. In support of complaint dated 05.07.2011, opposite party no.2 was examined under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and Yogesh Pal Singh and Ghambheer Singh both sons-in-law of Vijay Bahadur Singh were examined under Section 202 Cr.P.C. as PW-1 and PW-2. On 19.09.2012 on the basis of complaint and statements recorded under Section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., ACJM, Farrukhabad summoned the applicants and Raj Bahadur Singh (not applicant), under Sections 420, 468, 471, 506, 120B IPC.

6. Against the summoning order dated 19.09.2012 applicant nos. 1 and 2 preferred Criminal Revision No. 308 of 2012 before the Sessions Judge but on 03.11.2015 their revision was dismissed, hence the instant application has been moved challenging the complaint dated 05.07.2011, summoning order dated 19.09.2012 and lower revisional court order dated 03.11.2015.

7. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that present dispute is purely civil dispute and opposite party no.2 has filed the impugned complaint only with intention to harass the applicants. He further submitted that the Will dated 30.11.2000 was a registered Will and on the basis of Will dated 30.11.2000, mutation proceeding was commenced, which ultimately decided in favour of applicants after hearing both the parties and opposite party no.2 neither challenged the order of mutation dated 10.04.2012 nor he ever challenged the Will dated 30.11.2000.

Learned counsel for the applicants next submitted that as opposite party no.2, son-in-law of Vijay Bahadur Singh was well aware that Will dated 30.11.2000 is not forged one, therefore, he did not challenge the same before any competent civil court and without filing any suit for cancellation of Will dated 30.11.2000, he directly filed impugned complaint, which is bad in law. He further submitted that opposite party no.2 tried to negotiate the matter but when nego