Supreme Court Quashes Two-Decade-Old Criminal Case Over Alleged Forged Will | Says Civil Dispute Was Misused to Launch Criminal Proceedings
Kiran Raj
The Supreme Court Division Bench of Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice K.V. Viswanathan has quashed proceedings in Complaint Case No. 627 of 2002 pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Basti, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. The Court held that continuation of proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law and set aside the order of the High Court of Allahabad dated 09.04.2019, which had refused to quash the criminal complaint. The apex court allowed the appeal, observing that the case arose out of a civil dispute that had been improperly given a criminal colour.
The matter arose from a long-standing familial property dispute. The deceased, Shri Ram Baksh Dubey (referred to as “the testator”), had four sons: Chandra Sekhar, Chandra Prakash, Ashish Kumar, and Rajesh Kumar. The testator, apprehending misuse of his estate due to the alcohol dependency of his third son, Ashish Kumar, executed an unregistered will on 23.12.1993. This will named the four daughters-in-law (wives of his sons) as beneficiaries of his entire movable and immovable properties, located in Village Dewaragangabarar, District Basti.
The testator passed away on 03.01.1994. Following his demise, Ashish Kumar executed a registered sale deed dated 25.04.1994 in favour of Respondent No. 1 (the complainant) purporting to transfer his share in the testator’s property.
Unaware of the sale deed, the accused-appellants sought mutation of the property based on the will, resulting in a favourable order passed by the Tehsildar, Harraiya on 27.09.1994 under Section 34 of the Land Revenue Act, 1901.
When Respondent No. 1 allegedly interfered with the possession of the appellants, the latter filed a civil suit (O.S. No. 588 of 1997) seeking a permanent injunction. On 30.07.1997, the trial court passed an ex parte ad-interim injunction against Respondent No. 1.
Respondent No. 1 subsequently filed objections to the mutation order, relying on the 25.04.1994 sale deed. However, those objections were dismissed for non-prosecution on 09.01.1998.
On 12.01.2001, Respondent No. 1 initiated criminal proceedings under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., alleging that Chandra Prakash had conspired with the appellants to fabricate a forged will after the testator’s death. The Investigating Officer submitted a report on 09.09.2001, stating that no papers supported the complainant’s claim and that a civil matter was pending before the Tehsildar.
Nonetheless, based on objections to the police report, the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-II, Basti converted the complaint into Complaint Case No. 627 of 2002 under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, and 471 IPC. Supporting documents included the alleged forged will, sale deed, and khatauni. After the complainant and witnesses were examined under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., the magistrate found a prima facie case and issued summons on 23.10.2002.
The appellants challenged the complaint and summons under Section 482 Cr.P.C. before the High Court of Allahabad in Application No. 6543/2003. They argued that the mutation order and dismissal of objections were never challenged and had attained finality. They also noted that the complainant’s counterclaim in the civil suit had been dismissed for non-prosecution on 22.09.2007.
Despite these contentions, the High Court, after sixteen years, dismissed the application on 09.04.2019, holding that the allegations in the complaint disclosed prima facie offences and that the veracity of the will was a matter for trial.
Aggrieved, the appellants approached the Supreme Court, which stayed further proceedings in the complaint case on 08.11.2019.
The Supreme Court scrutinised the allegations and evidence on record. Referring to the complaint and documents, the Court observed in italicised words: “We fail to understand as to how the allegations against the appellants herein who are only legatees under the Will in question, could be sustained in light of the material on record.”
It was further stated: “We do not find that the offences aforementioned are made out in the present case. Neither do we find any criminal breach of trust nor do we find any cheating by impersonation.”
The Court noted that the complaint had been filed several years after the mutation order and suggested that the criminal process had been invoked to harass the appellants: “It is writ large on the face of the record that the complaint case has been employed as a circuitous tool to abuse the process of law, especially after the complainant-respondent No.1 failed to pursue the remedies available to it.”
The bench cited various precedents, including State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, particularly sub-paragraphs 1, 3, 5, and 7 of paragraph 102, to support its view that continuation of proceedings in such cases would amount to abuse of judicial process.
Quoting from Inder Mohan Goswami v. State of Uttaranchal, the Court observed: “The court must ensure that criminal prosecution is not used as an instrument of harassment or for seeking private vendetta or with an ulterior motive to pressurise the accused.”
The bench also referenced Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre and R.K. Vijayasarathy v. Sudha Seetharam, affirming that criminal complaints that merely cloak civil disputes should be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
“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.”
It was also recorded: “The complaint case against the accused-appellants has been pending for over two decades and its continuation would not serve any purpose.”
The Supreme Court concluded its judgment with the following directives:
The impugned order of the High Court of Allahabad dated 09.04.2019 passed in Application U/S 482 No. 6543/2003 is set aside. Consequently, the proceedings in Complaint Case No. 627 of 2002 pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Basti are quashed.
The bench recorded: “In our view, it is in the interest of justice that present proceedings be quashed.”
It further clarified that its observations pertained only to the criminal matter and shall not influence any pending civil litigation: “Needless to state, any observations made herein shall not have a bearing on any civil proceedings, if any, pending between the parties.”
The appeal was accordingly allowed.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. E. C. Vidya Sagar, Advocate-on-Record
For the Respondents: Mr. D. P. Singh Yadav, Advocate; Ms. Aneeta Yadav, Advocate; Ms. Aakanksha Tiwari, Advocate; Mr. Shiv Sagar Tiwari, Advocate-on-Record; Mr. Bhakti Vardhan Singh, Advocate-on-Record
Case Title: Urmila Devi & Others v. Balram & Another
Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 915
Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 3300 of 2025 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 10251 of 2019)
Bench: Justice B.V. Nagarathna, Justice K.V. Viswanathan
