# No Cheating: It is not alleged that signatures appearing on the Power of Attorney were forged or fabricated and that the executants were impersonated hence disputed claim over the property title is not creating false document

- Link: https://section1.in/no-cheating-it-is-not-alleged-that-signatures-appearing-on-the-power-of-attorney-were-forged-or-fabricated-and-that-the-executants-were-impersonated-hence-disputed-claim-over-the-property-title-is-no/
- Published: 2026-05-25T15:09:43+00:00
- Author: Ramprakash Rajagopal

Contents

 * [Appeal](https://section1.in/no-cheating-it-is-not-alleged-that-signatures-appearing-on-the-power-of-attorney-were-forged-or-fabricated-and-that-the-executants-were-impersonated-hence-disputed-claim-over-the-property-title-is-no/#appeal)
    - [Appeals against the common judgment and order of the High Court dismissing the quash application](https://section1.in/no-cheating-it-is-not-alleged-that-signatures-appearing-on-the-power-of-attorney-were-forged-or-fabricated-and-that-the-executants-were-impersonated-hence-disputed-claim-over-the-property-title-is-no/#appeals-against-the-common-judgment-and-order-of-the-high-court-dismissing-the-quash-application)
 * [Facts](https://section1.in/no-cheating-it-is-not-alleged-that-signatures-appearing-on-the-power-of-attorney-were-forged-or-fabricated-and-that-the-executants-were-impersonated-hence-disputed-claim-over-the-property-title-is-no/#facts)
    - [FIR and charge sheet registered for fraudulent decree](https://section1.in/no-cheating-it-is-not-alleged-that-signatures-appearing-on-the-power-of-attorney-were-forged-or-fabricated-and-that-the-executants-were-impersonated-hence-disputed-claim-over-the-property-title-is-no/#fir-and-charge-sheet-registered-for-fraudulent-decree)
    - [Allegation of extortion or monetary demand](https://section1.in/no-cheating-it-is-not-alleged-that-signatures-appearing-on-the-power-of-attorney-were-forged-or-fabricated-and-that-the-executants-were-impersonated-hence-disputed-claim-over-the-property-title-is-no/#allegation-of-extortion-or-monetary-demand)
    - [Quash filed](https://section1.in/no-cheating-it-is-not-alleged-that-signatures-appearing-on-the-power-of-attorney-were-forged-or-fabricated-and-that-the-executants-were-impersonated-hence-disputed-claim-over-the-property-title-is-no/#quash-filed)
    - [Quash dismissed](https://section1.in/no-cheating-it-is-not-alleged-that-signatures-appearing-on-the-power-of-attorney-were-forged-or-fabricated-and-that-the-executants-were-impersonated-hence-disputed-claim-over-the-property-title-is-no/#quash-dismissed)
 * [Counsels arguments](https://section1.in/no-cheating-it-is-not-alleged-that-signatures-appearing-on-the-power-of-attorney-were-forged-or-fabricated-and-that-the-executants-were-impersonated-hence-disputed-claim-over-the-property-title-is-no/#counsels-arguments)
 * [Analysis](https://section1.in/no-cheating-it-is-not-alleged-that-signatures-appearing-on-the-power-of-attorney-were-forged-or-fabricated-and-that-the-executants-were-impersonated-hence-disputed-claim-over-the-property-title-is-no/#analysis)
    - [Principal question: Whether the High Court is justifying in dismissing quashing application](https://section1.in/no-cheating-it-is-not-alleged-that-signatures-appearing-on-the-power-of-attorney-were-forged-or-fabricated-and-that-the-executants-were-impersonated-hence-disputed-claim-over-the-property-title-is-no/#principal-question-whether-the-high-court-is-justifying-in-dismissing-quashing-application)
    - [Dispute between the parties pertains to title and ownership over ancestral immovable property](https://section1.in/no-cheating-it-is-not-alleged-that-signatures-appearing-on-the-power-of-attorney-were-forged-or-fabricated-and-that-the-executants-were-impersonated-hence-disputed-claim-over-the-property-title-is-no/#dispute-between-the-parties-pertains-to-title-and-ownership-over-ancestral-immovable-property)
    - [Throughout the civil litigation for several years respondent never alleged commission of offences shown in the FIR](https://section1.in/no-cheating-it-is-not-alleged-that-signatures-appearing-on-the-power-of-attorney-were-forged-or-fabricated-and-that-the-executants-were-impersonated-hence-disputed-claim-over-the-property-title-is-no/#throughout-the-civil-litigation-for-several-years-respondent-never-alleged-commission-of-offences-shown-in-the-fir)
    - [Even the respondent did not raise any allegation in his complaint before DCB police station](https://section1.in/no-cheating-it-is-not-alleged-that-signatures-appearing-on-the-power-of-attorney-were-forged-or-fabricated-and-that-the-executants-were-impersonated-hence-disputed-claim-over-the-property-title-is-no/#even-the-respondent-did-not-raise-any-allegation-in-his-complaint-before-dcb-police-station)
    - [The High Court failed to examine the legal effect of suppressing the earlier complaint and the material improvements introduced in the subsequent impugned FIR](https://section1.in/no-cheating-it-is-not-alleged-that-signatures-appearing-on-the-power-of-attorney-were-forged-or-fabricated-and-that-the-executants-were-impersonated-hence-disputed-claim-over-the-property-title-is-no/#the-high-court-failed-to-examine-the-legal-effect-of-suppressing-the-earlier-complaint-and-the-material-improvements-introduced-in-the-subsequent-impugned-fir)
    - [Delay in registration of FIR after nine years is another circumstance cannot be ignored](https://section1.in/no-cheating-it-is-not-alleged-that-signatures-appearing-on-the-power-of-attorney-were-forged-or-fabricated-and-that-the-executants-were-impersonated-hence-disputed-claim-over-the-property-title-is-no/#delay-in-registration-of-fir-after-nine-years-is-another-circumstance-cannot-be-ignored)
    - [Judgment reference when regarding delay in lodging the complaint will lead for quashing](https://section1.in/no-cheating-it-is-not-alleged-that-signatures-appearing-on-the-power-of-attorney-were-forged-or-fabricated-and-that-the-executants-were-impersonated-hence-disputed-claim-over-the-property-title-is-no/#judgment-reference-when-regarding-delay-in-lodging-the-complaint-will-lead-for-quashing)
    - [Essential ingredient of forgery is making of a ‘false document’ within the meaning of section 464 IPC](https://section1.in/no-cheating-it-is-not-alleged-that-signatures-appearing-on-the-power-of-attorney-were-forged-or-fabricated-and-that-the-executants-were-impersonated-hence-disputed-claim-over-the-property-title-is-no/#essential-ingredient-of-forgery-is-making-of-a-false-document-within-the-meaning-of-section-464-ipc)
    - [When a person executes a document claiming property as his own there is no making of a false document](https://section1.in/no-cheating-it-is-not-alleged-that-signatures-appearing-on-the-power-of-attorney-were-forged-or-fabricated-and-that-the-executants-were-impersonated-hence-disputed-claim-over-the-property-title-is-no/#when-a-person-executes-a-document-claiming-property-as-his-own-there-is-no-making-of-a-false-document)
    - [Offence of cheating explained](https://section1.in/no-cheating-it-is-not-alleged-that-signatures-appearing-on-the-power-of-attorney-were-forged-or-fabricated-and-that-the-executants-were-impersonated-hence-disputed-claim-over-the-property-title-is-no/#offence-of-cheating-explained)
    - [If substantive offence are not made out conspiracy u/s 120B IPC fails](https://section1.in/no-cheating-it-is-not-alleged-that-signatures-appearing-on-the-power-of-attorney-were-forged-or-fabricated-and-that-the-executants-were-impersonated-hence-disputed-claim-over-the-property-title-is-no/#if-substantive-offence-are-not-made-out-conspiracy-us-120b-ipc-fails)
    - [Criminal antecedents cannot constitute the sole or even the primary basis to decline quashing of criminal proceedings](https://section1.in/no-cheating-it-is-not-alleged-that-signatures-appearing-on-the-power-of-attorney-were-forged-or-fabricated-and-that-the-executants-were-impersonated-hence-disputed-claim-over-the-property-title-is-no/#criminal-antecedents-cannot-constitute-the-sole-or-even-the-primary-basis-to-decline-quashing-of-criminal-proceedings)
    - [High Court is not expected to conduct a mini trial under section 482 crpc](https://section1.in/no-cheating-it-is-not-alleged-that-signatures-appearing-on-the-power-of-attorney-were-forged-or-fabricated-and-that-the-executants-were-impersonated-hence-disputed-claim-over-the-property-title-is-no/#high-court-is-not-expected-to-conduct-a-mini-trial-under-section-482-crpc)
    - [Present case is a civil property dispute](https://section1.in/no-cheating-it-is-not-alleged-that-signatures-appearing-on-the-power-of-attorney-were-forged-or-fabricated-and-that-the-executants-were-impersonated-hence-disputed-claim-over-the-property-title-is-no/#present-case-is-a-civil-property-dispute)
    - [Considering Neeharika Infrastructure case](https://section1.in/no-cheating-it-is-not-alleged-that-signatures-appearing-on-the-power-of-attorney-were-forged-or-fabricated-and-that-the-executants-were-impersonated-hence-disputed-claim-over-the-property-title-is-no/#considering-neeharika-infrastructure-case)
    - [Applying Bhajan Lal case](https://section1.in/no-cheating-it-is-not-alleged-that-signatures-appearing-on-the-power-of-attorney-were-forged-or-fabricated-and-that-the-executants-were-impersonated-hence-disputed-claim-over-the-property-title-is-no/#applying-bhajan-lal-case)
 * [Conclusion](https://section1.in/no-cheating-it-is-not-alleged-that-signatures-appearing-on-the-power-of-attorney-were-forged-or-fabricated-and-that-the-executants-were-impersonated-hence-disputed-claim-over-the-property-title-is-no/#conclusion)
    - [Case Quashed](https://section1.in/no-cheating-it-is-not-alleged-that-signatures-appearing-on-the-power-of-attorney-were-forged-or-fabricated-and-that-the-executants-were-impersonated-hence-disputed-claim-over-the-property-title-is-no/#case-quashed)
 * [Resource](https://section1.in/no-cheating-it-is-not-alleged-that-signatures-appearing-on-the-power-of-attorney-were-forged-or-fabricated-and-that-the-executants-were-impersonated-hence-disputed-claim-over-the-property-title-is-no/#resource)
 * [Party](https://section1.in/no-cheating-it-is-not-alleged-that-signatures-appearing-on-the-power-of-attorney-were-forged-or-fabricated-and-that-the-executants-were-impersonated-hence-disputed-claim-over-the-property-title-is-no/#party)

#### **Appeal**

##### **Appeals against the common judgment and order of the High Court dismissing the quash application**

2. The present appeals arise out of the common judgment and order dated 07.11.2023
passed by the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Criminal Misc. Application No.
780 of 2010 and Special Criminal Application No. 620 of 2010, whereby the High [Court declined to exercise its jurisdiction](https://section1.in/in-cross-case-or-case-in-counter-the-i-o-has-to-file-both-the-final-reports-before-the-jurisdictional-magistrate/)
under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred 
to as “the CrPC”) for quashing the criminal proceedings initiated at the instance
of respondent No. 2.

3. SLP (Crl.) No. 15537 of 2023 was filed by accused Nos. 3 and 4 and SLP (Crl.)
No. 16049 of 2023 was filed by accused No. 6. Since the appeals arise from a common
judgment and involve interconnected facts and issues, they are being disposed of
by this common judgment.

#### **Facts**

4. The brief facts as per the appellants are that the land bearing Survey No. 157
situated at Village Panas admeasuring approximately 5.5 acres was jointly purchased
on 03.06.1957 by the six children of Nemabhai Patel, including the father of the
appellants, Govindbhai Patel and the father of respondent No. 2, Chhaganbhai Patel.
As per respondent No. 2, the said property belonged exclusively to his Hindu Undivided
Family.

5. A settlement decree dated 21.07.1987 passed in Special Civil Suit No. 339/1985
was never acted upon and became unenforceable by limitation under Article 136 of
the Limitation Act. Thereafter, on 19.02.1988, the competent authority under the
Urban Land Ceiling Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as “the ULC Act”) recognised
⅓rd shares in favour of the branch of appellants and respondent No. 2, thereby overriding
the earlier settlement decree under Section 42 of the ULC Act. According to the 
appellants, this order was never challenged by respondent No. 2.

6. It is the case of the appellants that respondent No. 2 thereafter procured a 
fraudulent compromise decree dated 28.11.1988 in Special Civil Suit No. 176/1988
by using a fictitious person described as “Kishorbhai Govindbhai Patel” and forged
compromise documents. Based on the said decree, Mutation Entry No. 2183 dated 01.06.1991
was mutated in the revenue records without [following the prescribed procedure](https://section1.in/court-cannot-convert-complaint-into-a-1563-cr-p-c-petition-without-following-procedures/)
under the Gujarat Land Revenue Code, 1879.

7. The appellants instituted Special Civil Suit No. 377/2000 on 05.08.2000 seeking
declaration of their ⅔rd share in the property. In the said suit, the High Court
of Gujarat granted ad-interim injunction on 20.02.2002, which was subsequently made
absolute on 22.07.2003. It is the [case of the appellants that in the written statement filed](https://section1.in/police-officials-cannot-file-case-under-section-188-ipc/)
by respondent No. 2 on 12.09.2000, he claimed exclusive ownership solely on the 
basis of the fraudulent 1988 decree and no allegation of criminal intimidation, 
extortion or forgery was made against the appellants at that stage.

8. On 01.11.2001, accused nos. 1 to 5 executed a Power of Attorney in favour of 
accused no. 6 for conducting the civil proceedings. According to the appellants,
the execution of the [Power of Attorney was consistently affirmed before various courts](https://section1.in/cr-p-c-1973-notes-no-6-general-introduction-to-inquiries-and-trials-part-4-criminal-courts-powers-administration/)
and was never disputed by respondent No. 2 during the civil litigation.

##### **FIR and charge sheet registered for fraudulent decree**

9. Subsequently, on 13.04.2003, the Mamlatdar lodged FIR No. 136/2003 against respondent
No. 2 in relation to forgery committed in the ULC [Act proceedings and the fraudulent decree obtained in Special](https://section1.in/p-c-act-special-judge-discharge-shall-be-u-s-227-cr-p-c-and-not-u-s-239-cr-p-c/)
Civil Suit No. 176/1988, pursuant to which a chargesheet came to be filed on 10.08.2004.

##### **Allegation of extortion or monetary demand**

10. It is the case of the appellants that despite the subsisting injunction order
operating in their favour, respondent No. 2 lodged a complaint after a delay of 
about nine years before the DCB [Police](https://section1.in/even-in-a-case-where-the-final-report-of-the-police-under-section-173-is-accepted-and-the-accused-persons-are-discharged-the-magistrate-has-the-power-to-take-cognizance-of-the-offence-on-a-complaint/)
Station on 21.05.2009 without making any allegation of extortion or monetary demand.
Thereafter, suppressing the earlier complaint, respondent No. 2 lodged another complaint
before the Special Operations Group, which came to be [registered as FIR](https://section1.in/section-188-ipc-registering-fir-investigation-procedure-explained/)
No. I-CR No. 504/2009 on 31.12.2009, under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 504,
120B, 384, 511 ans 144 of the [Indian Penal Code](https://section1.in/title-understanding-section-120b-of-the-indian-penal-code-ipc-criminal-conspiracy-and-its-implications/),
1860 (hereinafter referred to as “the IPC”), wherein for the first time allegations
of extortion of Rs.1.5 crores were introduced.

##### **Quash filed**

11. Aggrieved thereby, the appellants approached the High Court of Gujarat by filing
Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 780/2010 with the prayer to [quash the FIR](https://section1.in/pc-act-fir-quash-high-court-would-not-have-entered-into-the-observation-that-there-is-no-direct-evidence-for-the-demand-for-bribe/)
No. I-CR No. 504/2009 dated 31.12.2009, wherein the High Court initially stayed 
further proceedings on 29.01.2010 and later modified the order on 14.02.2014 directing
that no arrest shall be effected and no [charge sheet shall be filed](https://section1.in/section-420-ipc-the-contention-that-since-charge-sheet-has-been-filed-the-present-appeal-is-to-be-dismissed-was-rejected/)
without permission of the High Court.

##### **Quash dismissed**

12. By the impugned judgment and order dated 07.11.2023 passed by the High [Court of Gujarat in Criminal](https://section1.in/court-cannot-return-final-report/)
Miscellaneous Application No. 780/2010, the High [Court dismissed the appellants’ application and permitted filing](https://section1.in/section-451-cr-p-c-petition-for-disposal-return-of-property-cannot-be-filed-directly-by-invoking-article-226-without-invoking-section-451-cr-p-c-before-the-concerned-court/)
of the chargesheet.

13. The appellants thereafter approached this Court by way of the present Special
Leave Petitions challenging the refusal of the High Court to quash the [criminal proceedings](https://section1.in/initiation-of-criminal-proceeding-under-sections-138-141-n-i-act-is-covered-under-moratorium-provision-u-s-14-ibc/).

#### **Counsels arguments**

The learned senior counsel for the appellants submitted that the impugned FIR was
a textbook misuse of the criminal machinery designed to exert undue pressure regarding
a long-standing civil property dispute over Survey No. 157, which had been actively
litigated in civil courts since 2000 with injunction orders operating in their favor.
They argued that the foundational legal ingredients for the alleged offenses were
entirely absent; the disputed Power of Attorney had been knowingly executed by the
involved family branches and repeatedly confirmed before authorities, meaning no
forgery took place. Furthermore, they contended that no property was ever delivered
because of deception to attract a cheating charge, and that the grave financial 
extortion claims were an afterthought introduced seven months later in an improved
second complaint to artificially give a criminal color to a stale matter after an
[unexplained delay](https://section1.in/habeas-corpus-unexplained-delay-in-disposing-the-representation-made-by-the-detenu-is-sufficient-to-set-aside-the-order-of-detention/)
of nearly nine years.

Conversely, the learned counsel for the respondents maintained that the FIR allegations
clearly disclosed a _prima facie_ case of systematic conspiracy, cheating, and land
forgery that demanded a full trial rather than a premature dismissal. They defended
the eight-to-nine-year delay in lodging the FIR by relying on a State Government
Circular dated July 23, 2003, which explicitly discouraged local [police stations](https://section1.in/custody-death-or-station-death-if-the-death-takes-place-inside-the-police-station-the-accused-persons-should-be-punished-for-the-offence-under-section-302-ipc/)
from registering FIRs over matters bearing a heavy civil complexion, thus explaining
the initial administrative hesitation. They strongly urged that because the [investigation](https://section1.in/faulty-investigation-though-the-police-officer-reached-the-spot-immediately-based-on-the-telephone-information-but-did-not-follow-the-investigation-procedures-resulting-in-prosecution-of-16-persons/)
was complete and revealed a triable case, the High Court acted properly within its
legal boundaries under Section 482 of the CrPC by refusing to run a “mini-trial”
or adjudicate disputed questions of civil title at a preliminary stage.

#### **Analysis**

##### **Principal question: Whether the High Court is justifying in dismissing quashing application**

36. The principal question which arises for our consideration is whether the High
Court was justified in refusing to exercise its jurisdiction under [Section](https://section1.in/section-482-crpc-only-high-court-has-the-power-to-direct-to-run-sentences-in-two-different-cases-concurrently/)
482 of the CrPC for quashing FIR No. I-CR No. 504/2009 dated 31.12.2009 registered
with Umra Police Station, Surat, for offences punishable under Sections 420, 465,
467, 468, 471, 504, 120-B, 384, 511 and 114 of the IPC and the consequential criminal
proceedings.

##### **Dispute between the parties pertains to title and ownership over ancestral immovable property**

37. At the outset, it is required to be noted that the dispute between the parties
pertains to title and ownership over ancestral immovable property bearing Survey
No. 157 situated at Village Panas, Surat. The record reveals that civil proceedings
in respect of the said property have remained pending since the year 2000. The appellants
instituted Special Civil Suit No. 377/2000 asserting their claim to ⅔rd share in
the suit property and that the dispute has travelled through multiple rounds of 
litigation before the civil courts, the High Court and even this Court.

##### **Throughout the civil litigation for several years respondent never alleged commission of offences shown in the FIR**

38. It is pertinent to note that throughout the civil litigation for several years,
respondent No. 2 never alleged commission of offences such as extortion, criminal
intimidation, forgery or conspiracy by the appellants. On perusal of the written
statement filed by respondent No. 2 in the civil proceedings, being Special Civil
Suit No. 377/2000, it is true that respondent No. 2 asserted exclusive ownership
over the [property but did not contain the allegation of any criminal](https://section1.in/cheating-criminal-breach-of-trust-if-there-is-no-entrustment-of-property-criminal-breach-of-trust-would-not-arise-but-cheating-may-attract-directions-to-police-and-magistrates-to-examine-conte/)
conduct committed by the appellants. To our minds, this circumstance is of importance
because the said allegations were levelled in the impugned FIR and are related to
events occurring in or around the year 2001, i.e., during the period of the civil
litigation.

##### **Even the respondent did not raise any allegation in his complaint before DCB police station**

39. On perusal of the chronology of events, it is also revealed that respondent 
No. 2 initially lodged a complaint dated 21.05.2009 before the DCB Police Station.
Admittedly, the [said complaint did not contain any allegation](https://section1.in/merely-because-the-respondent-withdrew-the-complaint-it-cannot-be-said-that-the-allegation-of-sexual-harassment-is-false/)
of extortion, demand of money, criminal intimidation or threats. However, after 
a gap of nearly seven months, respondent No. 2 [lodged the impugned FIR dated](https://section1.in/quash-delay-in-lodging-fir-without-date-and-time-affects-the-case/)
31.12.2009, introducing, for the first time, allegations that accused No. 6 had 
demanded Rs.1.5 crores and threatened respondent No. 2 with dire consequences.

##### **The High Court failed to examine the legal effect of suppressing the earlier complaint and the material improvements introduced in the subsequent impugned FIR**

40. The High [Court in the impugned judgment](https://section1.in/judgment-court-cannot-convict-one-accused-and-acquit-the-other-for-the-similar-or-identical-evidence-in-a-case/),
despite noting down this sequence of events, failed to examine the legal effect 
of suppression of the earlier complaint and the material improvement introduced 
in the subsequent impugned FIR. In our view, the subsequent introduction of allegations
of extortion, demand of money and intimidation in the second complaint materially
alters the nature and complexion of the dispute and supports the contention of the
appellants that the [criminal proceedings are an afterthought intended to give criminal colour to a longstanding civil](https://section1.in/wrong-a-wrongful-contract-may-constitute-both-civil-wrong-and-criminal-offence/)
dispute. Though respondent No. 2 contended that the subsequent FIR merely elaborated
upon earlier allegations, we find that the allegation of extortion, which is one
of the grave accusations in the FIR, was absent in the first complaint and surfaced
only subsequently. Thus, such material improvements cannot be ignored while examining
whether the criminal process is being abused or not.

##### **Delay in registration of FIR after nine years is another circumstance cannot be ignored**

41. The delay in registration of the FIR is another circumstance which cannot be
ignored. The incidents in question pertain to the year 2001 whereas the FIR came
to be registered only on 31.12.2009 after a delay of nearly eight to nine years.
The High Court accepted the explanation offered by respondent No. 2 that a Government
Circular dated 23.07.2003 discouraged registration of FIRs involving civil disputes.
In our view, the said explanation is not wholly satisfactory. The circular itself
cannot explain the inaction by respondent No. 2 between 2001 and 2009, particularly
when respondent No. 2 was actively litigating before competent courts throughout
the said [period](https://section1.in/under-section-307-ipc-first-part-court-cannot-be-sentenced-to-undergo-imprisonment-beyond-the-period-of-ten-years/)
and had access to all legal remedies including under Sections 154(3), 156(3) and
200 of the CrPC.

##### **Judgment reference when regarding delay in lodging the complaint will lead for quashing**

42. Recently, this Court, in Mohd. Wajid v. State of U.P. (supra), held that where
delay is coupled with circumstances creating serious doubt about the genuineness
of the prosecution, the proceedings may warrant quashing. The relevant paragraphs
read as under:

> “36. At this stage, we would like to observe something important. Whenever an 
> accused comes before the [Court invoking either the inherent powers under Section](https://section1.in/section-451-cr-p-c-petition-for-disposal-return-of-property-cannot-be-filed-directly-by-invoking-article-226-without-invoking-section-451-cr-p-c-before-the-concerned-court/)
> 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) or extraordinary jurisdiction under
> Article 226 of the Constitution to get the FIR or the criminal proceedings quashed
> essentially on the ground that such proceedings are manifestly frivolous or vexatious
> or instituted with the ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance, then in such circumstances
> the Court owes a duty to look into the FIR with care and a little more closely.
> 37. We say so because once the complainant decides to proceed against the [accused with an ulterior motive for wreaking personal](https://section1.in/custody-death-or-station-death-if-the-death-takes-place-inside-the-police-station-the-accused-persons-should-be-punished-for-the-offence-under-section-302-ipc/)
> vengeance, etc. then he would ensure that the FIR/complaint is very well drafted
> with all the necessary pleadings. The complainant would ensure that the averments
> made in the FIR/complaint are such that they disclose the necessary ingredients
> to constitute the alleged offence. Therefore, it will not be just enough for the
> Court to look into the averments made in the FIR/complaint alone for the purpose
> of [ascertaining whether](https://section1.in/aadhaar-act-furnishing-of-details-to-ascertain-whether-aadhaar-is-genuine-or-not-does-in-the-interest-of-national-security-is-permitted/)
> the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offence are disclosed or not.
> 38. In frivolous or vexatious proceedings, the Court owes a duty to look into 
> many other attending circumstances emerging from the record of the case over and
> above the averments and, if need be, with due care and circumspection try to read
> in between the lines. The Court while exercising its [jurisdiction](https://section1.in/in-cross-case-or-case-in-counter-the-i-o-has-to-file-both-the-final-reports-before-the-jurisdictional-magistrate/)
> under Section 482CrPC or Article 226 of the Constitution need not restrict itself
> only to the stage of a case but is empowered to take into account the overall 
> circumstances leading to the initiation/registration of the case as well as the
> materials collected in the course of investigation. Take for instance the case
> on hand. [Multiple FIRs](https://section1.in/multiple-firs-against-single-accused-is-directed-to-be-tried-by-one-court/)
> have been registered over a period of time. It is in the background of such circumstances
> the registration of multiple FIRs assumes importance, thereby attracting the issue
> of wreaking vengeance out of private or personal grudge as alleged.”

43. We [shall now examine](https://section1.in/how-sanctioning-authority-shall-examine-the-case-presented/)
whether the allegations contained in the impugned FIR, even if taken at face value,
disclose the ingredients of the alleged offences.

##### **Essential ingredient of forgery is making of a ‘false document’ within the meaning of section 464 IPC**

44. Insofar as offences under Sections 465, 467, 468 and 471 of the IPC are concerned,
the principal allegation relates to the execution of the Power of Attorney dated
01.11.2001 by accused Nos. 1 to 5 in favour of accused No. 6. The High Court proceeded
on the premise that since accused Nos. 1 to 5 lacked title over the property, execution
of the Power of Attorney and institution of civil proceedings amounted to forgery.
In our opinion, the approach of the High Court is legally unsustainable. The essential
ingredient of forgery under Section 463 of the IPC is the making of a “false document”
within the meaning of Section 464 of the IPC. It is not the case of respondent No.
2 that the signatures appearing on the Power of Attorney were forged or fabricated
and it is not alleged that the executants were impersonated or that the document
was fabricated by someone pretending to be another person. On the contrary, the 
execution of the document by accused Nos. 1 to 5 is admitted. The consistent case
of the appellants has been that they possessed a subsisting claim and share in the
ancestral property pursuant to the ULC Act proceedings and related revenue entries.
Whether such a claim is ultimately sustainable in law or not is a matter for adjudication
before the competent civil court. Therefore, the High Court erred in equating a 
disputed claim of title with the making of a false document.

##### **When a person executes a document claiming property as his own there is no making of a false document**

45. The law on this issue is [settled by this Court](https://section1.in/madras-high-court-settled-that-confession-could-be-used-in-favour-of-the-accused-to-reduce-the-sentence-is-sudalaimani-overruled/)
in Mohd. Ibrahim v. State of Bihar (supra), wherein it was held that when a person
executes a document claiming property as his own, there is no making of a false 
document merely because the claim is ultimately found to be incorrect. The relevant
paragraph reads as under:

> “17. When a document is executed by a person claiming a property which is not 
> his, he is not claiming that he is someone else nor is he claiming that he is 
> authorised by someone else. Therefore, execution of such document (purporting 
> to convey some property of which he is not the owner) is not execution of a false
> document as defined under Section 464 of the Code. If what is executed is not 
> a false document, there is no forgery. If there is no forgery, then neither Section
> 467 nor Section 471 of the Code are attracted.”

##### **Offence of cheating explained**

46. Similarly, the ingredients of the offence of cheating punishable under Section
420 of the IPC are also absent, i.e. to constitute the offence of cheating, there
must exist deception, fraudulent inducement and consequential delivery of property
coupled with dishonest intention at the inception of the transaction. There is no
allegation in the FIR that respondent No. 2 delivered any property, money or valuable
security to the appellants pursuant to deception or inducement and importantly, 
the material on record does not disclose dishonest intention at inception. **The
High Court in the impugned judgment observed that “false representation” was made
by the [accused persons](https://section1.in/pmla-pc-act-prosecuting-the-person-accused-of-an-offence-under-section-131e-of-the-pc-act-as-well-as-for-an-offence-under-section-3-of-pmla-would-not-amount-to-double-jeopardy/)
despite knowing that they had no title**. However, the foundation of the pending
[civil suit is the claim](https://section1.in/anticipatory-bail-civil-claims-being-settled-by-pressurising-through-criminal-prosecution-discouraged/)
of the appellants that they possessed ⅓rd share in the property pursuant to the 
ULC Act proceedings and related revenue records and thus, a disputed civil claim
cannot automatically be treated as fraudulent representation so as to attract Section
420 of the IPC.

47. The allegations regarding extortion under Section 384 of the IPC are also unsustainable.
In the FIR, respondent No. 2 alleges that accused No. 6 demanded Rs.1.5 crores or
alternatively partnership in the property. However, the FIR neither specifies the
date, place or circumstances of such demand nor there is an allegation that respondent
No. 2 actually delivered any property or money pursuant to such threat, which as
an essential ingredient of extortion.

48. The High Court in the impugned judgment further observed that the [accused persons “tried” to extort money and therefore Section](https://section1.in/even-in-a-case-where-the-final-report-of-the-police-under-section-173-is-accepted-and-the-accused-persons-are-discharged-the-magistrate-has-the-power-to-take-cognizance-of-the-offence-on-a-complaint/)
511 of the IPC would apply. However, we are unable to accept such reasoning. The
allegations under Sections 504 and 506 of the IPC are also vague in nature. The 
FIR does not disclose the [exact words](https://section1.in/section-27-iea-i-o-did-not-narrate-the-exact-words-spoken-by-the-accused-while-making-a-disclosure-statement/)
uttered, the nature of the threat administered or the surrounding circumstances 
constituting intimidation.

##### **If substantive offence are not made out conspiracy u/s 120B IPC fails**

    ```wp-block-verse
    49. Once the substantive offences themselves are not made out, the allegations of conspiracy under Section 120-B of the IPC necessarily fails in the present case.
    ```

##### **Criminal antecedents cannot constitute the sole or even the primary basis to decline quashing of criminal proceedings**

50. It is pertinent to [note that the High Court](https://section1.in/understanding-the-police-report-investigation-and-magistrates-duties-in-criminal-cases/)
has placed reliance upon the criminal antecedents of accused No. 6 while declining
to exercise jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC. The law on the issue was
settled recently by this Court in Mohd. Wajid v. State of U.P. (supra), wherein 
it has been held that criminal antecedents cannot constitute the sole or even the
primary basis to decline quashing of criminal proceedings. The High [Court in the impugned judgment](https://section1.in/judgment-court-cannot-convict-one-accused-and-acquit-the-other-for-the-similar-or-identical-evidence-in-a-case/),
though observing that antecedents were not the “sole criterion”, has made general
observations regarding “modus operandi” and “proclivity” of accused No. 6, the pendency
of earlier complaints and the circumstance that certain proceedings had previously
been quashed on the basis of settlements. In our considered view, it is for the 
Court to see [whether the essential ingredients of the alleged offences](https://section1.in/whether-the-same-accused-can-be-arrested-and-grant-bail-for-new-offence-added-in-the-fir-whether-victim-has-rights-during-bail/)
in the impugned FIR are made out or not. As observed hereinabove, we have [discussed in detail](https://section1.in/pmla-section-88-cr-p-c-an-order-accepting-bonds-under-section-88-cr-p-c-from-the-accused-does-not-amount-to-a-grant-of-bail-a-detailed-discussion-on-arrest-summons-warrant-bail-and-bond-under/)
with respect to the delay in filing the impugned FIR, absence of ingredients of 
the alleged offences, the dispute is purely civil in nature and therefore, in such
circumstances, antecendents of accused No. 6, cannot be a [ground for dismissal of the present](https://section1.in/further-investigation-can-be-permitted-only-new-facts-come-in-trial-also-honble-supreme-court-categorised-the-present-case-as-causing-delay-in-trial-for-no-genuine-grounds-exist/)
appeals.

##### **High Court is not expected to conduct a mini trial under section 482 crpc**

51. We are also unable to agree with the findings recorded by the High Court regarding
ownership and title over the suit property, which are all matters squarely falling
within the [jurisdiction of the competent civil court](https://section1.in/interlocutary-and-intermediate-orders-in-the-relm-of-revisional-jurisdiction-of-criminal-courts/).
While exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC, the [Court is not expected to conduct a mini trial](https://section1.in/reversal-of-acquittal-appellate-court-cannot-reverse-the-acquittal-on-fresh-appreciation-of-evidence-and-without-recording-any-illegality-error-of-law-or-of-fact-in-the-trial-court-judgment/)
or adjudicate disputed questions of title and ownership.

##### **Present case is a civil property dispute**

52. The [present case](https://section1.in/further-investigation-can-be-permitted-only-new-facts-come-in-trial-also-honble-supreme-court-categorised-the-present-case-as-causing-delay-in-trial-for-no-genuine-grounds-exist/),
viewed in its peculiar facts and circumstances, constitutes all the characteristics
of a civil property dispute, which is sought to be converted into criminal proceedings,
after several years of civil litigation. We are of the opinion that the criminal
process cannot be permitted to become a weapon of harassment and coercion in disputes
concerning title over immovable property.

##### **Considering Neeharika Infrastructure case**

53. We are conscious of the principles laid down by this Court in the recent decision
of Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra (supra) that courts
should ordinarily refrain from interfering at the threshold stage of investigation.
However, the said judgment itself recognises that where the allegations do not disclose
the commission of [cognizable offences](https://section1.in/all-the-offences-under-the-pmla-are-cognizable-and-non-bailable/)
or where criminal proceedings manifestly amount to abuse of process, the High Court
is duty-bound to exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC.

##### **Applying Bhajan Lal case**

54. The present case falls squarely within the well-settled categories warranting
interference under Section 482 of the [CrPC](https://section1.in/omission-to-state-oral-dying-declaration-in-161-statement/)
as delineated in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, namely, where the dispute is predominantly
civil in nature, where the allegations fail to disclose the essential ingredients
of the alleged offences, where the criminal proceedings are manifestly attended 
with mala fide intention, where there is extraordinary and [unexplained delay](https://section1.in/act-14-of-1982-sexual-offender-unexplained-delay-of-21-days-in-considering-the-representation-is-prejudice-to-the-detenu-with-direction-to-the-state-government-on-giving-counselling-to-the-arrested/),
and where continuation of the prosecution would amount to abuse of process of court.

#### **Conclusion**

##### **Case Quashed**

55. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the
High Court, in the impugned judgment, committed an error in refusing to exercise
its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC for quashing the impugned FIR and
consequential [criminal proceedings and thus warrants interference of this Court](https://section1.in/cr-p-c-1973-notes-no-6-general-introduction-to-inquiries-and-trials-part-4-criminal-courts-powers-administration/).

56. The present appeals are accordingly allowed.

#### **Resource**

Judgments cited or involved

 * Mohd. Ibrahim v. State of Bihar, (2009) 8 SCC 751: Cited to clarify the [legal requirements](https://section1.in/pre-conception-and-pre-natal-diagnostic-techniques-prohibition-of-sex-selection-act-1994-requires-legal-decision-by-the-appropriate-authority-to-search/)
   for “forgery” and the creation of a “false document” under the Indian Penal Code,
   emphasizing that a mere claim of ownership in a document does not constitute 
   forgery.
 * Joseph Salvaraja v. State of Gujarat, (2011) 7 SCC 59: Used to highlight the 
   [Court’s duty to intervene and quash criminal](https://section1.in/understanding-the-police-report-investigation-and-magistrates-duties-in-criminal-cases/)
   proceedings when allegations do not disclose the commission of cognizable offences,
   preventing the misuse of the criminal process for settling civil disputes.
 * Pooja Ravinder Devidasani v. State of Maharashtra, (2014) 16 SCC 1: Cited in 
   the context of inherent powers, reiterating that criminal proceedings should 
   not be allowed to become a tool for harassment or coercion in matters that are
   essentially civil in nature.
 * Devendra v. State of U.P., (2009) 7 SCC 495: Referenced to discuss the parameters
   of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC, particularly regarding the need
   to prevent [abuse of the process of law](https://section1.in/section-203-cr-p-c-dismissal-of-complaint-cause-of-action-for-filing-complaint-is-same-as-is-in-the-filing-contempt-petition-and-that-fact-was-not-mentioned-in-the-complaint-and-hence-taking-cogniza/).
 * Isaac Isanga Musumba v. State of Maharashtra, (2014) 15 SCC 357: Quoted to support
   the principle that [criminal law](https://section1.in/basics-of-criminal-law-part-3-criminal-jurisprudence/)
   should not be weaponized in disputes concerning the title or ownership of immovable
   property.

#### **Party**

    ```wp-block-verse
    Bhikhubhai Govindbhai Patel & Anr. versus The State of Gujarat & Anr - Criminal Appeal No. 2792 of 2026 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 15537 of 2023) - 2026 INSC 532 - May 22, 2026, by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol and the Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vipul M. Pancholi.
    ```

[Bhikhubhai Govindbhai Patel vs. The State of Gujarat 495502023_2026-05-22](https://section1.in/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/Bhikhubhai-Govindbhai-Patel-vs.-The-State-of-Gujarat-495502023_2026-05-22.pdf)
[Download](https://section1.in/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/Bhikhubhai-Govindbhai-Patel-vs.-The-State-of-Gujarat-495502023_2026-05-22.pdf)

### Further Study

 * [Supreme court quashes fir in property dispute emphasizes civil in nature and held it is impossible to appreciate how appellant deceived the respondent](https://section1.in/supreme-court-quashes-fir-in-property-dispute-emphasizes-civil-in-nature-and-held-it-is-impossible-to-appreciate-how-appellant-deceived-the-respondent/)
 * [Summoning order: Magistrate failed to see the criminal colour of a commercial civil dispute](https://section1.in/summoning-order-magistrate-failed-to-see-the-criminal-colour-of-a-commercial-civil-dispute/)