A criminal complaint cannot be quashed merely because there are concurrent civil disputes; both can proceed simultaneously, and delays in lodging complaints do not invalidate FIRs if justified.

CAV ORDER

Both these petitions arise out of the impugned complaint dated 22.11.2024 registered as an FIR in Crime No.359/2024 lodged by the 2^nd respondent – de facto complainant before the 1^st respondent – police authorities for the offences punishable under Sections 120B , 467, 468, 471, 474 and 405 IPC .

2. Petitioners in Crl.P.No.262/2025 are arraigned accused Nos. 1 to 4, while petitioner in Crl.P.No.1352/2024 is arraigned as accused No.5 and both the petitions are filed seeking quashing of the impugned complaint and the FIR and for other reliefs.

3. The 2^nd respondent- de facto complainant has filed statement of objections to both the petitions and contended that the same are liable to be dismissed.

4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned HCGP for 1^st respondent as well as learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent and perused the material on record.

5. In addition to reiterating the various contentions urged in the petition and referring to the material on record, learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the dispute between the parties is essentially civil in nature relating to immovable property and is sought to be given a cloak of criminality which is an abuse of process of law. It was submitted that there is long and inordinate delay in lodging the complaint, which is barred by limitation and deserves to be quashed. It was therefore submitted that both the petitions deserve to be allowed by quashing the impugned compliant and FIR as sought by the petitioners. In support of his contentions, learned counsel paced reliance upon the following judgments:-

(i) Usha Chakraborty v. State of West Bengal - (2023) 15 SCC 135 ;

(ii) Kishan Singh v. Gurpal Singh - (2010) 8 SCC 775;

(iii) S. Dutt (Dr.) v. State of Uttar Pradesh - 1965 SCC OnLine SC 6 ;

(iv) Dr. Vimla v. State (NCT of Delhi) - (1963) 33 COMP CAS 279;

(v) Ravichandra v. State - 2022 SCC OnLine Kar 1192;

(vi) Ravi Kapoor v. State of Himachal Pradesh - 2019 SCC OnLine HP 642.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent - complainant would reiterate the various contentions urged in the statement of objections and submits that the impugned complaint and the FIR discloses the commission of the cognizable offences which are made out, would require investigation and cannot be interfered with in the present petitions, which are liable to be dismissed. In support of his submissions, learned counsel placed reliance upon the following judgments:

(i) Delhi Development Authority v. Lila D. Bhagat - (1975) 1 SCC 410 ;

(ii) Kurukshetra University v. State of Haryana - (1977) 4 SCC 451 ;

7. I have given my anxious consideration to the rival submissions and perused the material on record.

8. Before adverting to the rival contentions, it would be apposite to refer to the impugned complaint which reads as under:-

"22 November 2024

From

Mrs Lakshmi Sreekumar

T 76, Harmony Homes

Hennur Main Road

Kalyan Nagar

Bangalore 560043

Whatsapp Ph: +91 9611 530 543 Resident of:

142 Westchester Drive

Churton Park Wellington 6037

New Zealand

To

The Ponce Inspector

Haskote Police Stution Hoskate Taluk

Bangalore Rural

Sub: Submitting Police Complaint for the following:

A) Section 336 (3) BNS - Forgery

B) Section 338 BNS-Forgery to benefit from financial and property transactions.

C) Section 340 BNS-Use of a forged document as genuine D) Section 339 BNS - Possession of a forged document intended to be used as genuine E) Section 316-Breach of trust F) Section 61 - Criminal Conspiracy G) Section 3(8) - Common Intention Respected Sir.

1) This is to inform that my signature has been forged in a GPA in the year 2000 b