Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Sugarthi @ Barshiya and Nizam Baizal, filed a petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) seeking to quash the criminal proceedings in CC No.890 of 2022 pending before the Judicial Magistrate No.IV, Thoothukudi. The case arose from a family property dispute involving the legal heirs of TMK Ettappan Raja. The de facto complainant, Thangasamy (later substituted by his brother Jeyaraman), alleged that three settlement deeds dated 20.01.1985 executed in favour of Sampath Udhayakumar Pandian and a will dated 10.05.2006 executed by him in favour of the first petitioner were forged. The petitioners are the daughter and son-in-law of Sampath Udhayakumar Pandian. Initially, an FIR was registered against six persons, but after investigation, charges were filed only against the petitioners and one other accused (A6). The petitioners contended that no civil case challenging the validity of the settlement deeds or will was pending; only a suit for declaration and permanent injunction (OS No.9 of 2018) was filed by Thangasamy, which was decreed in his favour on 07.06.2019. The prosecution claimed that the petitioners used the alleged forged documents in the civil suit. However, the petitioners argued that they never marked any documents in the civil suit. The court examined the materials and found that the final report did not disclose any independent evidence of forgery. The court held that the criminal proceedings were an abuse of process of law as the dispute was essentially civil in nature and no prima facie case for offences under Sections 465, 467, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) was made out. The court quashed the proceedings in CC No.890 of 2022 and allowed the connected petitions.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Quashing of FIR - Abuse of Process - Section 528 BNSS, 2023 - Criminal proceedings initiated after civil decree alleging forgery of settlement deeds and will - Court quashed proceedings as the dispute was essentially civil and no independent evidence of forgery was produced - Held that criminal law cannot be used to settle civil disputes (Paras 1-16).
B) Indian Penal Code - Forgery - Sections 465, 467, 468, 471 IPC - Requirement of Prima Facie Case - Allegations of forged documents without independent evidence - Court found that mere civil decree against the petitioners did not establish forgery in criminal law - Held that criminal proceedings must be based on independent evidence, not merely on civil findings (Paras 5-12).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the criminal proceedings in CC No.890 of 2022 for offences under Sections 465, 467, 468, 471 IPC should be quashed as an abuse of process of law when the dispute is essentially civil in nature and no independent evidence of forgery exists.
Final Decision
The court allowed the criminal original petitions and quashed the proceedings in CC No.890 of 2022 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.IV, Thoothukudi. The connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.
Law Points
- Criminal proceedings cannot be used as a tool to settle civil disputes
- Quashing of FIR when no prima facie case of forgery exists
- Abuse of process of law when criminal complaint is filed after civil decree
- Requirement of independent evidence of forgery beyond civil findings
Case Details
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.15430 of 2024 & Crl.O.P.(MD)No.9668 & 9669 of 2025
Mr.M.Vishnuvarthanan (for petitioners), Mr.B.Thanga Aravindh (for R1), Mr.T.Selvan (for R2)
Sugarthi @ Barshiya and Nizam Baizal
The State of Tamilnadu and E.Jeyaraman
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal original petition seeking quashing of criminal proceedings in CC No.890 of 2022 for offences under Sections 465, 467, 468, 471 IPC.
Remedy Sought
Petitioners sought to quash the criminal proceedings in CC No.890 of 2022 on the file of Judicial Magistrate No.IV, Thoothukudi dated 22.07.2022.
Filing Reason
The petitioners contended that the criminal proceedings were an abuse of process of law as the dispute was essentially civil in nature and no independent evidence of forgery existed.
Previous Decisions
A civil suit OS No.9 of 2018 was decreed in favour of the deceased Thangasamy on 07.06.2019. The final report in the criminal case was filed after the civil decree.
Issues
Whether the criminal proceedings for forgery under Sections 465, 467, 468, 471 IPC should be quashed when the dispute is essentially civil in nature and no independent evidence of forgery is presented.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners argued that the final report is an abuse of process of law, giving criminal color to a civil dispute. No civil case challenging the validity of the settlement deeds or will is pending. The petitioners never marked any documents in the civil suit.
Respondents argued that the petitioners utilized forged settlement deeds and will in the civil suit, which was decreed against them, and thus criminal proceedings are justified.
Ratio Decidendi
Criminal proceedings cannot be used as a tool to settle civil disputes. Mere pendency of a civil suit or a decree against a party does not automatically establish forgery in criminal law. There must be independent evidence of forgery to sustain charges under Sections 465, 467, 468, 471 IPC. In the absence of such evidence, the criminal proceedings amount to an abuse of process of law and are liable to be quashed.
Judgment Excerpts
The learned counsel for the petitioners categorically contended that the final report in CC No.890 of 2022 is an abuse of process of law, where the respondent police has attempted to give a criminal color to a civil dispute.
No civil case is pending before any Court of law challenging the validity of the aforesaid three settlement deeds as well as the will.
The learned counsel for the petitioner categorically pointed out that no documents were marked by the petitioners herein at any point of time before the learned II Additional District Judge, Tuticorin.
Procedural History
On 20.01.1985, three settlement deeds were executed in favour of Sampath Udhayakumar Pandian. On 10.05.2006, he executed a will in favour of the first petitioner. On a complaint by Thangasamy, FIR in Crime No.13 of 2018 was registered. After investigation, final report was filed only against the petitioners and A6. Thangasamy died during investigation and his brother Jeyaraman was substituted as LW1. A civil suit OS No.9 of 2018 was decreed in favour of Thangasamy on 07.06.2019. The petitioners filed Crl.O.P.(MD)No.15430 of 2024 and connected petitions seeking quashing of CC No.890 of 2022.
Acts & Sections
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023: 528
- Indian Penal Code, 1860: 465, 467, 468, 471
