Disguising Of Civil Dispute As Criminal Not Permissible: Supreme Court Quashes Two Decade Old Cheating Case Arising Out Of Property Claim

The Supreme Court while quashing a Cheating Case arising out of a two decade old property claim observed that disguising a civil dispute as criminal is not permissible in law.

The Court was considering an Appeal against an order of the High Court by which the Application of the Appellant seeking quashing of the complaint case registered under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

The division bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice KV Vishwanathan observed, "....The instant case is just another one in a string of cases filed in recent years that seek to disguise a civil dispute as criminal. The complaint case against the accused appellants has been pending for over two decades and its continuation would not serve any purpose."

The Appellant was represented by Advocate-on-Record E. C. Vidya Sagar while the Respondent was represented by Advocate-on-Record Bhakti Vardhan Singh.

Facts of the Case

The Testator facing fear of his estate being jeopardized and trammeled by the alcoholic obsessions of his third son executed an unregistered will bequeathing all his movable and immoveable properties in the name of his four daughters-in-law as his legatees, who, naturally, are the respective wives of testator’s four sons and are also the Accused-Appellants. The Testator later passed away and his third son-Ashish Kumar executed a registered sale deed for his share in Testator’s property in favour of Complainant-Respondent No.1.It was the case of the Accused-Appellants that they, unaware of the registered sale deed and filed for Mutation and the order was passed. He was later by way of an ex-parte ad-interim order was restrained from carrying out any type of construction on the disputed property and not to cut the crop on the disputed land. Aggrieved by the interim order of the Trial Court, the Respondent filed objections against the Mutation Order along with an Application seeking the recall of the same based on the Sale Deed which was later rejected for non-prosecution.

Subsequently, the Complainant-Respondent No.1 filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. alleging that one of the sons of the testator had entered into a conspiracy with Accused-Appellants and forged a fraudulent unregistered will after the death of the testator with the intention to circumvent the sale deed. Having found a prima facie case made out against the Accused-Appellants, summons were issued. Aggrieved, they preferred an Application seeking quashing of the Criminal Complaint Case. It was argued that neither the will nor the order of the Tehsildar rejecting the objection to the Mutation Order was challenged.

During the pendency of the Application before the High Court, the Complainant-Respondent No.1 filed a counter-claim in the Suit which was rejected with observation that the suit was liable to be proceeded against Complainant-Respondent No.1 herein ex-parte.

After a period of sixteen years since institution, the Application filed by the Accused-Appellants seeking quashing of the complaint case was dismissed vide Impugned Order.

Counsel for the Accused-Appellant contended that this is not a case where any of the ingredients for the alleged offences under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, and 471 of the IPC are even prima facie present and that the circumstances make it apparent that the criminal proceedings were initiated only to abuse the process of law with the oblique aim of settling the civil disputes between the parties.

Reasoning By Court

The Court at the outset observed that it fail to understand as to how the allegations against the Appellants herein who are only legatees under the Will in question, could be sustained in light of the material on record.

"Upon appreciating the facts and circumstances, we do not find that the offences aforementioned are made out in the present case. Neither do we find any criminal breach of trust nor do we find any cheating by impersonation. We also do not find any cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property. In these circumstances, we fail to see how it could be alleged that the accused-appellants cheated and dishonestly induced the complainant-respondent No.1," the Court observed.

It concluded that the case was initiated in abuse of power of law.

"It is writ large on the face of the record that the complaint case has been employed as a circuitous tool to abuse the process of law, especially after the complainant-respondent No.1 failed to pursue the remedies available to it. The chronology of events indicates that the criminal proceedings in the year 2001 were instituted only after approximately seven years of the mutation order dated 27.09.1994, four years after the ex-parte ad-interim order issued on 30.07.1997 and three years after the rejection of the objections to the Mutation Order vide Order dated 09.01.1998", the Court observed.

Citing its ruling in Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia vs. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre, (1988), the Court reiterated that the criminal process cannot be utilized for any oblique purpose and court should quash those criminal cases where the chances of an ultimate conviction are bleak and no useful purpose is likely to be served by continuation of a criminal prosecution.

"On a careful consideration of the aforementioned judicial dicta, we find that none of the offences alleged against the Accused- Appellants herein are made out.....the observations made by this Court in Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia inform our decision and the judgment of this Court in the case of Bhajan Lal and particularly sub-paragraphs 1, 3, 5 and 7 of paragraph 102 extracted above, squarely apply to the facts of this case. In our view, it is in the interest of justice that present proceedings be quashed", the Court ruled.

The Appeal was accordingly allowed.

Cause Title: Urmila Devi & Ors. vs. Balram & Another (2025 INSC 915)

Appearances:

Appellant- Advocate-on-Record E. C. Vidya Sagar,

Respondent- Advocate-on-Record Bhakti Vardhan Singh, Advocate D. P. Singh Yadav, Advocate Aneeta Yadav, Advocate Aakanksha Tiwari, Advocate-On-Record Shiv Sagar Tiwari

Click here to read/ download Order