Pendency of Civil Suit No Bar to Criminal Prosecution for Forgery and Trespass: Andhra Pradesh HC

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has reinforced the principle that criminal proceedings cannot be throttled merely because a dispute involves immovable property, ruling that allegations of fabricating land records and criminal trespass demand a full trial regardless of concurrent civil litigation.

A Single Judge Bench of Justice Sunitha Gandham heard the petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking to quash proceedings involving charges of cheating, mischief, and criminal trespass. The Court examined whether the existence of multiple civil suits regarding the same property rendered the criminal prosecution an abuse of the judicial process.

Civil Dispute vs. Criminal Liability

The petitioners argued that the dispute was purely civil in nature, involving title and possession of land in Mamidalapadu Village, Kurnool. They contended that since several civil suits were pending between the parties, the criminal proceedings under Sections 420, 447, and 427 of the Indian Penal Code were intended to harass them. However, the prosecution countered that the accused had created fake pattadar passbooks and demolished structures on the land.

The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "The mere existence or pendency of civil proceedings does not, by itself, furnish a ground to quash criminal proceedings when the allegations in the FIR and the material collected during investigation prima facie disclose the commission of cognizable offences. A dispute may have civil consequences and, at the same time, give rise to criminal liability if the ingredients of a criminal offence are independently made out."

Adherence to Bajanlal Principles

The Bench referred to the landmark ruling in State of Haryana and Others v. Bajanlal and Others, which provides the cardinal principles for exercising inherent powers. The Court noted that the allegations of fabricating passbooks and causing damage to survey stones were not "inherently improbable." The Court held that whether the documents relied upon by either side are genuine is a matter for appreciation of evidence during trial.

The Court has following directions:
"The petitioners are at liberty to raise all their factual and legal contentions before the learned Trial Court, which shall consider the same in accordance with law, uninfluenced by any observations made herein. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is dismissed."

Background

The case originated from a report lodged by a de facto complainant alleging that on August 28, 2016, the petitioners trespassed into his land, removed survey stones, and demolished a basement. It was further alleged that the first petitioner claimed ownership based on a fake pattadar passbook. While the petitioners claimed they were the original owners and cited a certificate for the second petitioner's employment elsewhere, the Court found these were disputed facts. The Court noted that earlier litigation, including O.S.No.178 of 1990 and O.S.No.40 of 2016, indicated a long-standing title dispute, but emphasized that the criminal charges of Indian Penal Code must be tested on their own merits.

Case Details:
Case No.: CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 5656 OF 2020
Neutral Citation: 2026:APHC:39336
Case Title: S. Meeraj Ahammed and Others v. The State of Andhra Pradesh and Another
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Sri T. Nikilesh representing Sri Varun Byreddy
For the Respondent(s): Smt. K. Priyanka Lakshmi, Assistant Public Prosecutor

Source: 2026 CaseBase(AP) 15708