Family Property Dispute Cannot Be Given a Criminal Colour: Calcutta High Court Quashes Forgery Case Between Brothers

“The parties are real brothers and co-owners… The case reveals no criminal intent but only a civil discord clothed in penal provisions”,  In a judgment reinforcing the boundaries between civil and criminal law, the Calcutta High Court quashed a private complaint alleging multiple serious IPC offences—including forgery, cheating, and criminal conspiracy—arising from a joint property dispute among family members.

Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul) held that the complaint was clearly a civil property dispute among co-owners, improperly dressed up as a criminal prosecution to exert pressure. The Court reiterated that criminal law cannot be used as a weapon of harassment in matters of civil nature.

“The parties in the present case are related to each other and are thus family… The disputed property is their joint property. The proceedings before the Trial Court are clearly an abuse of the process of law.”

Allegation of Forged Memorandum of Understanding Rejected as Dispute Over Co-Owned Property

The complainant alleged that his co-owners and brothers, Pawan Agarwal and Vishnu Kishen Agarwal, created a false Memorandum of Understanding in 2018 by impersonating his authority as co-owner. The agreement allegedly acknowledged that a tenant surrendered possession of a 300 sq. ft. shop to the petitioners in exchange for payment, while excluding the complainant's consent.

However, the High Court found that the property was jointly owned, and the petitioners, being co-owners, acted within a contested family arrangement. The dispute had already led to a pending title suit filed by the complainant in 2018.

“The complainant was requested to contribute but he refused… From the date of surrender, the shop room is under lock and key. This is clearly a property dispute.”

“Criminal Process Is Being Used to Harass”—Court Applies Bhajan Lal and Paramjeet Batra Principles

Relying on established precedents such as State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal and Paramjeet Batra v. State of Uttarakhand, the Court held that when a dispute is essentially civil in nature, criminal proceedings should not be allowed to proceed in the absence of clear mens rea.

“Whether a complaint discloses a criminal offence or not depends upon the nature of facts… A civil transaction given a cloak of criminal offence must be quashed to prevent abuse of process.”

The Court concluded that the complaint fell under categories 1, 3, and 7 of the Bhajan Lal guidelines, including:

• No prima facie case of criminal offence

• Allegations were inherently civil

• Proceedings were attended with mala fide and personal grudge

Proceedings Quashed in Their Entirety

Finding that no ingredients of forgery, impersonation, or conspiracy were made out, and no wrongful gain or dishonest intention could be inferred, the High Court allowed the criminal revision petition:

“There being no prima facie materials on record against the petitioners in respect of the offences alleged… the proceedings are hereby quashed.”

The Court also vacated interim orders and directed the Trial Court to be notified.

This judgment reiterates the judicial stance that civil disputes—especially those involving families and property—should not be converted into criminal battles through exaggerated allegations of forgery or fraud. It sends a strong signal against the misuse of criminal complaints as litigation strategy, especially when civil remedies already exist and are actively being pursued.

“Judicial process is a solemn proceeding which cannot be allowed to be converted into an instrument of oppression or harassment.”

Date of Decision: 16 May 2025