The pendency of civil proceedings does not justify quashing criminal investigations if prima facie evidence exists against the accused.

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners – accused Nos.1 to 11 seeking to quash the proceedings in FIR No.258 of 2025 on the file of P.S. Bowenpally, Hyderabad, registered for the offences under Sections 408 , 418, 420, 423, 465, 468, 475 read with Section 120(b) of Indian Penal Code and Section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure .

2. Heard the submissions of Sri G.Narender Raj, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent No.1 –

State.

3. The learned petitioners counsel has submitted that the present complaint is filed as an afterthought by the de facto complainant and that there is a suit filed for partition, which is pending before the trial Court vide O.S.No.358 of 2022 before the I Junior Civil Judge, Secunderabad. He further submitted that after three years the present complaint is filed by the de facto complainant just to harass the petitioners herein and that it is a Court referred complaint and no reasons are assigned by the Magistrate while referring the complaint and also the conditions under Section 175(3) of BNSS are not complied by the police, therefore, in the light of the guidelines laid down by the Apex Court in Om Prakash Ambadkar v. The State of Maharashtra¹, the complaint needs to be quashed.

4. He further submitted that during the pendency of the civil cases, a criminal case cannot be instituted and if at all the alleged will deed is forged document, the de facto complainant can take recourse during the pendency of the suit but so far no steps have been taken by the de facto complainant in the suit to send the will deed to FSL but has filed the criminal case with an ulterior motive, he therefore, prayed to quash the FIR.

5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that in Anurag Bhatnagar v. State (NCT of Delhi), [2025 SCC OnLine SC 238], the Apex Court held that “as the informant had directly moved the Magistrate under Section 156 (3) of the CrPC without exhausting his statutory remedies, the Magistrate could have avoided taking action on the said application and could have refused to direct for the registration

2 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 742

of the FIR. However, as entertaining an application directly by the Magistrate is a mere procedural irregularity and since the Magistrate in a given circumstance is otherwise empowered to pass such an order, the action of the Magistrate may not be illegal or without jurisdiction”. Therefore, there is nothing wrong committed by the Magistrate, hence, prayed to dismiss the petition.

6. Perused the record.

7. The allegations do point out the alleged offences against the petitioners herein. The investigation is still in progress. Though the petitioner counsel contends that when there is a civil dispute pending between both the parties a criminal complaint cannot be entertained and that criminal proceedings should not be continued against the petitioners, in Kathyayini v. Sidharth P.S. Reddy , [2025 LiveLaw (SC) 712], the Apex Court has held that pendency of civil proceedings on the same subject matter, involving the same parties is no justification to quash the criminal proceedings if a prima facie exists against the accused persons.

8. In the light of the said decision and in the facts and circumstances of the case, since the investigation is at initial stages, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the same.

9. In the result, the Criminal Petition is disposed of directing the police concerned to conclude the investigation at the earliest, strictly in accordance with law. Further, th