THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CRIMINAL PETITION No.5048 OF 2025

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners – accused Nos.1 and 2 seeking to quash the FIR No.3 of 2025 on the file of P.S.Malakpet, Hyderabad, registered for the offences under Sections

420, 468, 471, 506 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. Heard the submissions of Mohd.Mujahid Qureshi, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri M.Vivekananda Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.1 – State and Mohd.Asif Amjad, learned counsel for respondent No.2.

3. The learned petitioners counsel submits that the dispute is purely of a civil nature and that there is a partition suit pending among the family members vide O.S.No.257 of 2024 and that the said suit was filed in the month of July, 2024 and that after six months, the de facto complainant has lodged the FIR as an afterthought, just to harass the petitioners and that even if they are aggrieved by the said documents, which they are disputing they can as well agitate their case before the Civil Court during the trial of the said suit but with an ulterior motive, the present complaint is filed by the de facto complainant. He further argued that there is no iota of truth in the allegations leveled against them by the de facto complainant and he therefore, prayed to quash the FIR.

4. The learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2/de facto complainant has submitted that the matter is still under investigation and that the act of the petitioners is criminal in nature as they have created a sham document, which has to be addressed in a criminal proceeding and that the de facto complainant was put to great loss due to the said document, which is fraudulently brought into existence by forgery and hence, he prayed not to quash the proceedings.

5. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, has submitted that the investigation is in progress and that the police can collect evidence during the course of investigation to bring out the truth.

6. Perused the record.

7. The de facto complainant has filed a complaint on 02.01.2025 alleging that a house bearing No.16-11-5/9/3 at Saleem Nagar, Malakpet was given under oral Hiba by their mother after the expiry of their father, equally to himself and his brother i.e. 152 Sq.yards each and that in 1981 he went to Saudi Arabia for pursuing his career and he has been frequently visiting India. However, when he came down on 10.01.2024 to the above said address at Saleem Nagar, he found that his door was broken and that the accused have trespassed into his house and built a wall. When he enquired with his elder brother, they have shown him a fabricated document with a forged signature of their late mother showing that the whole property admeasuring 304 Sq.yards belongs to his elder brother and that his valuables inside the house are also missing. Thus, when he approached them, they abused him and pushed him away, thus, he lodged the present complaint.

8. In Kunti and another v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another¹, it was observed that it is the duty and obligation of the Court to exercise a great deal of caution in issuing process., particularly when the matter is essentially of civil nature. It has also referred to Sarabjit Kaur v. State of Punjaband another² , while making this observation.

9. In Deepak Gaba and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another³, the Apex Court was constrained to note recurring cases being encountered wherein parties repeatedly attempted to invoke the jurisdiction of criminal courts by filing vexatious complaints, camouflaging allegations that are ex facie outrageous or are pure civil claims. It was further held that such attempts must not be entertained and should be dismissed at the threshold.

10. In Thermax Limited and others v. K.M.Johny and others⁴ the Apex Court has held that the Court should be watchful of the difference between civil and criminal wrongs, though there can be situations where the allegation may constitut