The court ruled that criminal proceedings should be quashed when the underlying dispute is primarily civil in nature, as established in this case regarding property title.

O R D E R

1. Leave granted.

2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant and learned counsel appearing for the State. The other respondents have been duly served. The second respondent is the complainant.

3. By the impugned order, the High Court partly allowed a petition for quashing filed by the appellant and her husband. The petition was for quashing charge-sheet arising out of Crime No.312 of 2009 for the offences punishable under Sections 420 , 468, 471 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 . The High Court granted relief of quashing to the appellant’s husband but rejected the prayer of the appellant. As noted by the High Court, the allegation against the appellant and her husband was that in furtherance of their common intention to grab the property subject matter of the First Information Report (FIR), they annexed a forged map and documents to the sale deed of the vendor Gyatri Mukherjee while registering the sale deed. Another allegation against the appellant is that in spite of knowledge of forgery and fabrication of map and documents, the appellant entered into an agreement with the vendor Gyatri Mukherjee to purchase a plot subject matter of the FIR. As noted earlier, the High Court granted relief to the appellant’s husband. But, only because the appellant was the purchaser, the relief of quashing was denied to her.

4. Our attention is invited to the judgment dated 4 th November, 2017 by the Civil Court in a suit filed by 10 plaintiffs including the said Gyatri Mukherjee in respect of the subject properties. There is a categorical finding recorded by the High Court that the plaintiffs produced the original documents of title and proof of their ownership and possession in respect of respective plots forming part of the suit property. Therefore, a decree of injunction was granted by the Civil Court.

5. Considering the allegations made against the appellant and considering the fact that the dispute is essentially a civil dispute concerning title of the property, the High Court ought to have quashed the proceedings as against the appellant as well.

6. Accordingly, impugned order dated 17 th October, 2019 is modified and charge-sheet bearing No.78/2010 and Criminal Case bearing RCC No.1521 of 2010 pending before the Court the of Judicial Magistrate, 1 st Class, Court No.2, Nagpur is hereby quashed as against the appellant.

The order made in favour of her husband is not disturbed.

7. We make it clear that the observations made in this judgment are only for limited purposes of considering the case of the appellant and the same will not have any bearing as far as the cases of co-accused are concerned.

8. The Appeal is accordingly allowed.

9. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.