Complaint Case Is a Tool to Harass, Not to Prosecute Genuine Offence: Supreme Court Quashes Forgery Allegations in Inheritance Dispute

“Criminal Proceedings Filed After Failing in Civil Remedies—Such Abuse of Law Must Be Prevented”, Supreme Court of India quashing criminal proceedings alleging forgery and cheating in relation to a disputed will. The Court observed that the allegations failed to disclose any cognizable offence, and that the complaint was clearly an attempt to give a civil dispute a criminal colour.

“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 failed to pursue the remedies available to him,” said the Bench of Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice K.V. Viswanathan.

The matter originated from a family inheritance dispute concerning agricultural lands. Ram Baksh Dubey, the testator, apprehending that his son Ashish Kumar, an alcoholic, would squander his estate, executed an unregistered will on 23 December 1993 bequeathing his property to his four daughters-in-law. The will expressed his intent to protect the estate for the benefit of his grandchildren and the daughters-in-law who cared for him.

The testator passed away on 3 January 1994. Thereafter, his son Ashish Kumar, disregarding the will, sold part of the land via a registered sale deed dated 25 April 1994 to Balram (Respondent No.1). Unaware of this transaction, the daughters-in-law sought mutation on the basis of the will, which was granted by the Tehsildar on 27 September 1994.

A civil suit (O.S. No. 588/1997) for permanent injunction was filed by the appellants against Balram. An interim injunction was granted restraining construction and crop removal on the disputed land. Respondent No.1’s counter-claim was rejected due to non-prosecution in 2007.

Despite these civil proceedings, seven years after the mutation, Balram filed a criminal complaint under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC, alleging that the will was forged after the death of the testator in a conspiracy to defeat the earlier sale deed.

The complaint, registered as Case No. 627 of 2002, led to issuance of summons. The appellants moved the Allahabad High Court under Section 482 CrPC to quash the proceedings. However, the High Court, on 9 April 2019, dismissed the plea, observing that the allegations disclosed triable issues of forgery and cheating.

The Supreme Court identified the central issue: whether the criminal complaint disclosed any prima facie offence, or was it merely a tactic to settle a civil dispute through criminal process.

The Court held: “We fail to understand how the allegations against the appellants, who are merely legatees under the will in question, could be sustained in light of the material on record.”

On the allegation of forgery, the Court emphasized that no evidence or conduct indicated criminal intention. The appellants merely acted based on a will executed before the death of the testator, and the mutation was carried out legally, after giving the respondent a chance to object.

The Bench noted that: “We do not find any cheating by impersonation… or 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.”

The Court placed strong reliance on the seven categories for quashing laid down in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, particularly:

• Where the allegations, taken at face value, do not disclose any offence;

• Where they are so absurd or inherently improbable;

• Where proceedings are maliciously instituted with ulterior motives.

“The present case squarely falls within sub-paragraphs 1, 3, 5 and 7 of paragraph 102 of Bhajan Lal. The complaint has been filed not to prosecute a genuine offence, but to arm-twist the appellants after civil remedies failed,” observed the Court.

Use of Criminal Process as a Weapon

Citing Inder Mohan Goswami v. State of Uttaranchal (2007) 12 SCC 1, the Court reiterated: “The Court must ensure that criminal prosecution is not used as an instrument of harassment or private vendetta… The intention is the gist of the offence.”

It also drew from Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia v. Sambhajirao (1988) 1 SCC 692: “The criminal process should not be permitted to be used for oblique purposes. Cases where the chance of ultimate conviction is bleak should be quashed.”

The Bench also relied on R.K. Vijayasarathy v. Sudha Seetharam (2019) 16 SCC 739 and Anand Kumar Mohatta v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2019) 11 SCC 706 to reaffirm that courts must be vigilant against misuse of criminal law to camouflage civil disputes.

“Tacitly endorsing such misuse only unnecessarily burdens the courts and the criminal justice system,” the Court warned.

In unequivocal terms, the Court held: “The instant case is just another in a string of cases filed in recent years that seek to disguise a civil dispute as criminal… It is in the interest of justice that the present proceedings be quashed.”

Accordingly:

• The High Court’s order dated 09.04.2019 was set aside;

• The Complaint Case No. 627 of 2002 pending before the CJM, Basti was quashed;

• The Court clarified that its observations would not affect any pending civil litigation.

This ruling sends a clear message: criminal law cannot be used as a tool to force settlements in civil disputes, especially after failing to secure relief through civil remedies. The judgment marks a reaffirmation of the judiciary’s role in curbing frivolous litigation and protecting individuals from prolonged harassment.

Date of Decision: 31 July 2025