The judgment emphasized the test for quashing criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C., highlighting that the un-controverted allegations must prima facie establish the offence and that the nature and scope of civil and criminal proceedings are different.

Alok Verma, J.

1. This application is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashment of FIR and charge sheet arising out of crime no.698/2015, Police Station Banganga, district Indore in which along with other co-accused, the petitioners are also arrayed as accused.

2. The relevant facts that emerge from the record are that the disputed land situated in village Jakhia, Tehsil Sanwer was recorded in the name of Smt. Anandi Bai, who died in the year 2000. Late Anandibai and her husband Keshorai had six sons. The eldest son Chaturbihari @ Chaturbhuj Nigam is husband of petitioner no.2 and father of petitioner nos.1 and 3. After death of Anandibai in the year 2000, her six sons filed an application for mutation before the Tehsildar excluding seven sisters, including respondent no.2. It is further alleged that respondent no.2 married against the wishes of her parents late Keshorai and Anandibai and therefore, she was disowned by them and also she was excluded from the family property. However, it is an admitted fact that both Keshorai and his wife died intestate.

3. According to respondent no.2, she came to know about the mutation application filed by her brothers only in the year 2010 and then she filed an appeal before the Sub Divisional Officer, interim stay was granted against all six brothers restraining them from selling the suit property. A final order was also passed in favour of respondent no.2, in which it was held that respondent no.2 has 1/13th share along with her brothers and sisters who were 13 in number including respondent no.2. Subsequently, it was alleged by respondent no.2 that petitioners sold part of the disputed land showing themselves owner of ?th share, while they were only having 1/13th share and thereby committed criminal offence under Section 420/34 of IPC.

4. Petitioner no.1 and other accused persons applied for grant of anticipatory bail. They were granted anticipatory bail by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge. After investigation, charge sheet was filed against them and bailable warrant was issued by the concerning Court.

5. This application is filed on the ground that :(i) it was purely a civil dispute and therefore criminal proceedings should be quashed (ii) the property was sold before passing of the final order by the Revenue Court on 28.09.2012. At that time, ?th Share was recorded in the revenue records and therefore, there was no mens rea (iii) petitioner no.1 was not a party before the Revenue Court. He was deliberately not made a party by the respondent no.2 and therefore, it cannot be presumed that he was having knowledge of the proceedings before the revenue Court. (iv) There was no entry in respect of respondent no.2 about her share in the suit property. The name of father of petitioner nos.1 and 3 and husband of respondent no.2 was entered in the revenue records and after his death in the year 2008, name of the petitioners were recorded and therefore, it is prayed that in view of the various judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court, there is no criminal case made out against the petitioners and the proceedings should be quashed.

6. The application is vehemently opposed by the Counsel for respondent no.1./State as well as respondent no.2. According to the reply of respondent no.2, the petitioners had full knowledge that there were 13 issues of late Keshorai and Anandibai. Seven sisters along with six brothers were also inherited the property in equal share. The petitioners knew that there was no will left by late Anandibai or her husband Keshorai and therefore, after they died intestate, the property left by them should be distributed in equal shares between brothers and the sisters. After the death of Anandibai, surreptitiously all the six brothers got their name mutated. Coming to know about the mutation in the year 2010, respondent no.2 filed a civil suit against all the brothers and sisters claiming 1/13th share in the property left by late Anandibai. She also filed a suit for cancellat