Forgery requires making a false document, not merely asserting ownership; delayed and improbable allegations led to quashing of the FIR.

A complaint alleging cheating and forgery failed because the materials showed no dishonest inducement and no making of a false document within the legal sense. A person's execution of a sale deed while asserting ownership, without impersonation, unauthorised authority, alteration, or deception of a person unable to understand the act, does not by itself constitute forgery; the connected forgery-based offences also could not stand. The FIR was additionally undermined by more than four years' delay, together with prior civil and criminal proceedings over the same property, which made the allegations of intimidation and the prosecution case inherently improbable. The FIR was quashed in full.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the FIR disclosed the offences of cheating and forgery, including the making of a false document; (ii) Whether the long delay in lodging the complaint and the surrounding circumstances rendered the prosecution case inherently improbable and liable to be quashed.

Issue (i): Whether the FIR disclosed the offences of cheating and forgery, including the making of a false document.

Analysis: Cheating requires dishonest inducement of a person to deliver property or do an act, whereas the complaint disclosed only an allegation of threats and not of inducement. The alleged execution of sale deeds by a person claiming title to property, even if his claim is false, does not by itself amount to making a false document unless the document is executed by impersonation, unauthorized authority, alteration, or deception of a person unable to understand the act. On that legal test, the materials did not satisfy the ingredients of forgery, and the connected offences founded on forgery also could not stand.

Conclusion: The offences of cheating and forgery were not made out against the petitioners.

Issue (ii): Whether the long delay in lodging the complaint and the surrounding circumstances rendered the prosecution case inherently improbable and liable to be quashed.

Analysis: The complaint was lodged more than four years after the alleged threats, and the facts showed prior civil and criminal proceedings concerning the same property and substantially the same sequence of events. In such circumstances, the delay and the overall factual matrix made the accusation of intimidation and the consequent FIR inherently improbable, falling within the category of cases where continuation of proceedings would not be justified.

Conclusion: The FIR was liable to be quashed on the ground of inherent improbability and delay.

Final Conclusion: The criminal original petitions succeeded, and the impugned FIR stood quashed in entirety.

Ratio Decidendi: Execution of a sale deed by a person asserting ownership over property, without impersonation or similar deception, does not amount to a false document; where the complaint also suffers from unexplained delay and inherent improbability, the FIR may be quashed.

---