Supreme Court Quashes Two-Decade-Old Criminal Complaint, Finds Civil Dispute Disguised as Criminal Prosecution

A bench of Justice B. V. Nagarathna and Justice K. V. Viswanathan heard the appeal arising out of an order of the Allahabad High Court dated 09.04.2019 which had dismissed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of Criminal Complaint No.627 of 2002. The appeal challenged registration of criminal proceedings under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC that grew out of a property dispute and alleged forgery of a will.

The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court order and quashed the complaint proceedings pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Basti. The Court held that "none of the offences alleged against the accused-appellants herein are made out" and found that the criminal process had been invoked to press what was essentially a civil controversy. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "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 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 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 further noted that continuation of the two-decade-old criminal prosecution "would not serve any purpose" and emphasised that inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. must guard against misuse of criminal process.

Background The dispute arose from a family property transaction. The testator executed an unregistered will dated 23.12.1993 bequeathing his movable and immovable properties to his four daughters‑in‑law, expressing concern that his third son, Ashish Kumar, might dissipate the estate. The testator died on 03.01.1994. Ashish Kumar executed a registered sale deed on 25.04.1994 in favour of the complainant (respondent No.1). The accused‑appellants obtained a mutation order on 27.09.1994 on the basis of the will and initiated civil proceedings, including O.S. No.588 of 1997 seeking injunctions; an ex‑parte ad‑interim order was recorded on 30.07.1997. Objections to the mutation order by the complainant were rejected for non‑prosecution on 09.01.1998.

In January 2001 the complainant filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. alleging that a forged will had been fabricated after the testator’s death to circumvent the registered sale deed; the matter was registered as Complaint Case No.627 of 2002. The magistrate found a prima facie case and issued summons. The accused‑appellants sought quashing under Section 482 Cr.P.C. before the Allahabad High Court, which dismissed their application in April 2019, holding that the allegations prima facie disclosed offences under the cited IPC provisions and that the question of forgery required trial.

Before this Court, counsel for the appellants argued that the matter was essentially civil and criminal proceedings were an abuse of process; reliance was placed on Bhajan Lal and subsequent decisions. The Court agreed that the ingredients of cheating, forgery and related offences were not made out against the legatees and that the complaint had been "employed as a circuitous tool to abuse the process of law." The Court drew on precedent including Bhajan Lal, Madhavrao Scindia and later decisions on the limited exercise of inherent jurisdiction and quashed the criminal proceedings. The Court clarified that its observations would not affect any civil proceedings between the parties and granted the accused‑appellants liberty accordingly.

Case No.: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 3300 OF 2025 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.10251 of 2019); Citation: 2025 INSC 915 Case Title: URMILA DEVI & OTHERS v. BALRAM & ANOTHER Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Tripurari Ray, Advocate (for the accused‑appellants) For the Respondent(s): D.P. Singh Yadav, Advocate (for complainant‑respondent No.1)