Criminal Prosecution Cannot Be Quashed Where Family Disputes Involve Allegations of Forgery: Delhi HC

The Delhi High Court has refused to derail criminal proceedings in a high-stakes property dispute between siblings, ruling that the existence of a civil remedy does not serve as an absolute bar to criminal prosecution for forgery and breach of trust. By declining to exercise its extraordinary powers to quash an FIR involving the alleged fraudulent execution of a Will and sale documents of a critically ill father, the Court has reinforced that disputed questions of fact involving medical capacity and document veracity must be settled through trial rather than summary dismissal.

In a detailed judgment, Justice Saurabh Banerjee adjudicated upon a petition moved under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking the quashing of an FIR registered for offences under Sections 420, 406, 467, 471, and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The petitioners, a son and daughter-in-law, were accused by the respondent's sister of taking advantage of their father’s Stage-IV cancer to fraudulently register properties and a Will in their favor.

High Court Analyzes Limits of Section 482 CrPC

The Court observed that the petitioners approached the court barely 45 days after the FIR was registered. It emphasized that while dealing with such petitions, the court must be mindful that inherent jurisdiction is to be exercised sparingly. Referring to the foundational principles laid down in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, the Court noted that quashing is only permissible if the allegations, even when taken at face value, do not disclose a cognizable offence.

Justice Banerjee further integrated the steps outlined in Rajiv Thapar vs. Madan Lal Kapoor ( "(2013) 3 SCC 330": 2013 CaseBase(SC) 172), noting that for a High Court to quash proceedings based on material produced by the accused, such material must be of "sterling and impeccable quality" to persuade a reasonable person to condemn the allegations as false. The Court noted that in this case, the petitioners relied on medical reports and WhatsApp chats which were yet to face the test of trial.

Regarding the dual nature of the dispute, the Court relied on Amit Kapoor vs. Ramesh Chander ( "(2012) 9 SCC 460": 2012 CaseBase(SC) 833) to hold that merely because a civil claim is maintainable regarding the father's estate, it does not prevent the complainant from maintaining a criminal complaint if the acts also amount to a criminal offence.

The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "...the rival versions put forth by learned senior counsel for both the sides, wherein disputed questions of facts have been raised involving allegations of cheating, forgery, misrepresentation and criminal breach of trust, are cognizable offences, the present is a fit case for proceeding with the trial."

The Court has following directions:

"Accordingly, the present petition, alongwith the pending applications, is dismissed, with no order as to costs. ... A copy of this judgment be sent to the concerned Trial Court for information."

Background

The dispute arose following the death of Dr. Dev Kumar in December 2019. The complainant (daughter) alleged that while her father was suffering from Stage-IV cancer and diminished mental capacity, the petitioners (son and his wife) fraudulently got a Will registered on November 5, 2019, ousting her from the estate. The allegations extended to the purchase of property in Vasant Vihar using ancestral funds, where the complainant’s name was allegedly substituted with that of petitioner no. 2.

The petitioners argued that the dispute was purely civil, revolving around family property and a Will registered as per the The Registration Act, 1908. They cited CBI vs Aryan Singh and Ors. to argue that at the stage of quashing, the court should look at whether enough material exists to warrant a trial. They further relied on precedents stating that a registered document carries a presumption of validity. However, the State and the complainant argued that the medical condition of the father and the timing of the registrations suggested a deep-rooted conspiracy and forgery that could only be unearthed during a trial.

Casework Details:
Case No.: CRL.M.C. 343/2022
Case Title: Maneesh Moudgil And Another V. The State N.C.T. Of Delhi And Another
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Ms. Rebecca Mammen John, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Ravinder Kumar Yadav, Mr. Shantanu Singh, Mr. Ravi Sehgal, Mr. Pravir Singh, Mr. Aditya S. Nair, and Ms. Ishika Jain, Advocates
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Satish Kumar, APP for State; Mr. N. Hariharan, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Saleem Ahmed, Mr. Arvind Pandey, Ms. Punya Rekha Angara, Mr. Amartya, Mr. Aman Akhtar, Ms. Vasundhara Rat Tyagi, Mr. Arjan Singh Manola and Mr. Apoorv Kumar, Advs. for R2

Source: 2026 CaseBase(DEL) 6656