Case Note & Summary
The Bombay High Court at Aurangabad, by its judgment dated 4 December 2020, allowed Criminal Application No. 547 of 2012 filed by Paraji Sheshrao Madan and others (original accused) seeking quashing of Regular Criminal Case No. 91 of 2010 pending before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ambad, for offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 474 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The private complaint was filed by respondent No. 2, Ramchandra Yadavrao Jige, alleging that the accused had fraudulently changed revenue records of land Gut No. 194 at Math Pimpalgaon to deprive him of his share in 99 R portion purchased jointly with accused No. 1 under a sale deed dated 8 February 1990. The complainant claimed that mutation entry No. 334 was sanctioned on 19 May 1990 and that the accused later manipulated records. The court examined the complaint and found that the dispute was essentially civil in nature, as the parties were joint purchasers and the mutation entry reflected the existing rights. The court noted that there was no allegation of false documents or fraudulent intent, and the complainant had already filed a civil suit. The court held that criminal proceedings cannot be used to settle civil disputes and that the ingredients of cheating, forgery, and using forged documents were not made out. The court quashed the criminal proceedings and set aside the orders dated 4 December 2011 and 12 December 2011 passed by the Magistrate. The connected application for restoration of possession was also disposed of as infructuous.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code - Quashing of FIR - Section 482 CrPC - Inherent Powers - Dispute regarding mutation entry in revenue records based on joint purchase of land - Allegations of forgery and cheating - Held that when the dispute is essentially civil in nature and no criminal intent is made out, continuation of criminal proceedings would be an abuse of process of court, hence proceedings quashed (Paras 2-10). B) Indian Penal Code - Cheating and Forgery - Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 474 IPC - Essential Ingredients - Joint purchase of land and subsequent mutation entry - Absence of fraudulent or dishonest intention - Held that mere change in revenue entry based on existing rights does not constitute criminal offence; civil remedy is appropriate (Paras 5-9).
Issue of Consideration
Whether criminal proceedings for offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 474 IPC can be sustained when the dispute essentially pertains to civil rights over land and revenue entries, and whether the High Court should exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC to quash such proceedings.
Final Decision
Criminal Application No. 547 of 2012 is allowed. Regular Criminal Case No. 91 of 2010 pending before Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ambad and orders dated 04-12-2011 and 12-12-2011 are quashed and set aside. Criminal Application No. 5204 of 2017 is disposed of as infructuous.
Law Points
- Criminal proceedings can be quashed when dispute is predominantly civil in nature
- no criminal intent is made out
- and continuation would be abuse of process of court
- Sections 420
- 467
- 468
- 471
- 474 IPC require fraudulent or dishonest intention which is absent when parties have joint ownership and mutation is based on existing rights.
