Criminal liability can arise from allegations of collusion and forgery, justifying the continuation of proceedings despite a pending civil dispute.

ORAL ORDER

Petitioner who is arraigned as accused No.2 has filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C , with a prayer to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against her in C.C.No.113/2021 (PCR.No.107/2015) on the file of II Addl.Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Mangaluru for the offences punishable under Sections 417, 465, 467, 468, 471, 420 IPC.

2. In support of the petition, the petitioner has contended that based on the complaint in PCR.No.107/2015 filed by respondent No.2, the trial Court referred it to the jurisdictional police for investigation. After the investigation, the concerned police have filed charge sheet against accused Nos.1 and 2 including the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 417, 465, 467, 468, 471, 420 IPC.

3. It is alleged that complainant is the owner of the property and petitioner has purchased the same from accused No.1, as PA holder of the complainant and that the said GPA is forged and fabricated. There are no allegations that petitioner is involved in the forging and fabrication of the GPA. Complainant has already filed suit in O.S.No.851/2022 and summons is issued and it is pending for consideration. Already temporary injunction is granted in favour of respondent No.2. Having regard to the fact that the dispute between the parties is civil in nature, continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of the Court and the trial Court without following the procedure has referred the matter for investigation. Along with complaint affidavit of the complainant was not filed and directions in Priyanka Srivastava Vs. State of U.P (Priyanka Srivastava)¹ are not followed and hence, the petition. 4. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for petitioner has relied upon by the decision in Mohammed Ibrahim and Ors Vs. State of Bihar and Anr .(Mohammed

2 Ibrahim) .

5. On the other hand learned High Court Government Pleader representing the respondent No.1 State and learned counsel for respondent No.2 submit that petitioner is no other than the sister-in-law of accused No.1. They are colluding together. In fact petitioner has not initiated any proceedings against accused No.1. The FSL report support the allegations that the GPA is forged. Though

1 (2015) 6 SCC 287 (2009) 8 SCC 751 the dispute regarding the property is civil in nature, the specific allegations that petitioner and accused No.1 are colluding and that the GPA is forged and concocted attracts criminal liability. In the light of charge sheet, there is a prima facie material to proceed against the petitioner. The disputed facts cannot be decided in a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C and it requires a full fledged trial and pray to dismiss the petition.

6. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for respondent No.2 has relied upon by the decision in Prasad M

3 R and Ors Vs. State of Karnataka and Anr. (Prasad M R) .

7. Heard arguments and perused the record.

8. Respondent No.2 filed a complaint alleging that when she was in need of finance in a sum of Rs.31 lakhs, accused No.1 offered to lend the same subject to deposit of title deeds of her property measuring of 10 cents of land in Crl.P.No.101175/2022 Dt:

Sy.No.121/10A consisting of two storied residential house. Accordingly, she deposited title deeds and secured loan of Rs.31 lakhs.

8.1 In order to pay off the said loan, she sold first floor of her house in March 2014 and repaid Rs.31 lakhs with interest of Rs.1,86,000/- to accused No.1 and requested him to return of her title deeds. However, he went on postponing the same. In order to secure education loan for her daughter when she took RTC of her land, she found the name of accused No.2 and on enquiry with the Sub-registrar, she came to know that a