The Rajasthan High Court has quashed an FIR involving allegations of fraud and forgery in a family inheritance dispute, emphasizing that the criminal justice system cannot be used to resolve civil matters. The ruling came in the case Kishore Singh Mertiya v. State of Rajasthan & Anr. (S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 485/2024), where Justice Arun Monga noted that the core issue was a property dispute, and invoking criminal law in such circumstances amounted to a misuse of the legal process.
Background of the Case
The petitioner, Kishore Singh Mertiya, a resident of Udaipur, had sought the quashing of FIR No. 675/2023, dated August 13, 2023, filed at Pratapnagar Police Station, Udaipur. The FIR, lodged by his nephew, Ajay Singh Mertiya, accused Kishore Singh of forgery and fraudulent transfer of family property following the death of the complainant’s father. The property at the center of the dispute is Plot No. C-3, located in Arihant Colony, Udaipur.
Ajay Singh alleged that his father, a well-known contractor, had entrusted the management of his office to his brother, the petitioner. Taking advantage of this trust, Kishore Singh allegedly obtained the complainant’s father’s signature on blank papers and misappropriated documents related to the property. Ajay Singh further claimed that after his father’s death, his uncle fraudulently substituted his name on property records, threatening Ajay to vacate the plot.
Kishore Singh, represented by advocate Mr. Ravindra Paliwal, denied these allegations, stating that the property dispute was primarily a civil matter. He argued that the FIR was an attempt by his nephew to escalate a long-standing civil disagreement into a criminal case.
Legal Issues Involved
The primary legal issue before the court was whether the allegations in the FIR, filed under Sections 420 (cheating), 467 (forgery of valuable security), 468 (forgery for the purpose of cheating), and 471 (using forged documents) of the IPC, presented a prima facie case of criminal misconduct. The petitioner contended that the FIR was lodged with malicious intent to harass him in a civil property dispute, and no criminal act was involved.
The complainant’s legal team, led by Mr. Utkarsh Singh, argued that the matter required a thorough investigation and that the law should be allowed to take its course. The Public Prosecutor, Mr. Vikram Rajpurohit, further emphasized that the investigation was at a nascent stage, and the court should not interfere at this point.
Court’s Decision
After hearing both sides, Justice Arun Monga ruled in favor of the petitioner and quashed the FIR. The court observed that the dispute primarily revolved around inheritance and property rights, which are civil in nature. Justice Monga remarked, “Criminal law cannot be invoked to resolve civil disputes. Using the criminal justice system to settle family property issues is a misuse of legal process.”
The court further noted that for charges under Sections 420, 467, 468, and 471 of the IPC to be sustained, there must be clear evidence of fraudulent intent and dishonesty. In this case, the FIR lacked specific allegations of criminal intent or wrongdoing. Justice Monga highlighted that the complainant’s father had entrusted the petitioner with managing the office while he was alive, and there was no concrete evidence of any forgery or fraud committed by the petitioner.
The court also pointed out the delayed nature of the FIR, which was lodged many years after the alleged forgery took place. The complainant claimed to have discovered the forgery only after being threatened by the petitioner, but the court found this explanation unconvincing. The fact that the complainant was aware of the civil proceedings regarding the property for years without raising any concerns further weakened the credibility of his claims.
Citing the Supreme Court’s guidelines in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992 Supp (1) SCC 335), the court underscored that an FIR can be quashed if it does not disclose a prima facie case of any criminal offense. Applying these principles, the court ruled that continuing the FIR would amount to harassment of the petitioner and an abuse of the legal process.
Key Observations of the Court
Justice Monga made several important observations during the ruling, stating:
– “The central issue between the parties is a family property dispute, fundamentally a civil matter concerning inheritance and ownership.”
– “The allegations in the FIR ex facie do not satisfy the necessary legal elements of the offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, and 471 of the IPC.”
– “Criminal law cannot be used to settle civil disputes, and the FIR appears to be an attempt to escalate a family property dispute into a criminal case.”
The court concluded that pursuing criminal proceedings in this case would be an unnecessary waste of judicial resources and an undue hardship on the petitioner.
