TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (1) TMI 1280
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of 2023 arising out of FIR No. 229 of 2021 registered for offences under Sections 417, 420, 465, 468, 471 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('IPC') on the file of the learned Special Metropolitan Magistrate-I, Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Land Grabbing Cases, Allikulam, Egmore, Chennai. 3. The appellant herein is Dr. C.S. Prasad, the de-facto complainant, whereas the accused persons are Dr. C. Satyakumar, Dr. Swarnakumari (wife of Dr. C. Satyakumar) and Shri S. Ravi Chitturi (their son), who are respondent Nos. 1 to 3 respectively in this Appeal. Dr. Ranjith Chittoori, who is respondent No. 5 herein, is the nephew of respondent No. 1 and the appellant. FACTUAL MATRIX 4. The record discloses that the present criminal proceedings arise out of a dispute rooted in the execution of three registered settlement deeds concerning valuable immovable properties situated in Chennai, originally owned by Late Dr. C. Satyanarayana and his wife Late Smt. C. Lakshmi Devi. The couple had three sons, namely, respondent No. 1 (elder son), the appellant herein, and Dr. C. Ranga Rao, who predeceased them in the year 2011. Dr. Ranjith Chittoori is the son of the predeceased Dr. C. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... Pursuant thereto, FIR No. 229 of 2021 dated 16.12.2021 came to be registered by the Central Crime Branch, Land Grabbing Cell, Egmore, Chennai, for offences under Sections 417, 420, 465, 468 and 471 of the IPC against respondent Nos. 1 to 3 herein and others. 9. Meanwhile, upon completion of the trial in O.S. No. 2190 of 2014, the Civil Court by judgment dated 24.01.2023 dismissed O.S. No. 2190 of 2014, upholding the validity of all the three settlement deeds. Aggrieved by the said decree, respondent No. 5 preferred A.S. No. 403 of 2023 before the High Court. By interim order dated 26.07.2023, the High Court had granted an order of injunction against respondent Nos. 1 to 3 restraining alienation of the properties during the pendency of the appeal. 10. On completion of investigation in FIR No. 229 of 2021, the Police filed a Final Report (FR-18/2023) dated 11.03.2023 before the learned Special Metropolitan Magistrate-I, Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Land Grabbing Cases, Allikulam, Egmore. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offences, and the case was registered as C.C. No. 2 of 2023. 11. Earlier, respondent Nos. 1 to 3 had filed Crl.O.P. No. 16932 of 2022 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e the settlement deeds in his own favour. 15. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the PoA and the subsequent settlement deeds are fraudulent documents and are alleged to have been obtained by deceiving Late Dr. C. Satyanarayana. Learned counsel further highlights that the High Court had failed to take note of the mental state of Late Dr. C. Satyanarayana at the time of executing the settlement deeds. 16. Lastly, the learned counsel for appellant submits that the High Court had erroneously quashed the proceedings against respondent Nos. 1 to 3 on the pretext that the matter was a civil dispute. Learned counsel further submits that both civil and criminal proceedings can co-exist if the ingredients of the offence alleged are made out. 17. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 has supported the impugned order passed by the High Court quashing C.C. No. 2 of 2023 arising from FIR No. 229 of 2021. Learned counsel argues that the present petition is a misuse of criminal process to re-open a family property dispute that has already been decided in civil proceedings in its judgment dated 24.01.2023 passed in O.S. No. 2190 of 2014. 18. Learned ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....inds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. (1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non- cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently im....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d in the first information report that the Court will not permit an investigation to go on. 33.4. The power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with circumspection, as it has been observed, in the "rarest of rare cases" (not to be confused with the formation in the context of death penalty). 33.5. While examining an FIR/complaint, quashing of which is sought, the court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR/complaint. 33.6. Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the initial stage. 33.7. Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an exception rather than an ordinary rule. 33.8 to 33.11.... 33.12. The first information report is not an encyclopedia which must disclose all facts and details relating to the offence reported. Therefore, when the investigation by the police is in progress, the court should not go into the merits of the allegations in the FIR. Police must be permitted to complete the investigation. It would be premature to pronounce the conclusion based on hazy facts that the complaint/FIR does not deserve to be investigated or that ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d that the validity of the settlement deeds has been upheld in the proceedings before the Civil Court. We are of the view that this approach adopted by the High Court is not correct. It is a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that civil liability and criminal liability may arise from the same set of facts and that the pendency or conclusion of civil proceedings does not bar prosecution where the ingredients of a criminal offence are disclosed. In Kathyayini vs. Sidharth P.S. Reddy and Others 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1428 (Para 23), this Court had made it crystal clear that "pendency of civil proceedings on the same subject matter, involving the same parties is no justification to quash the criminal proceedings if a prima facie case exists against the accused persons." 27. Adjudication in civil matters and criminal prosecution proceed on different principles. The decree passed by the Civil Court neither records findings on criminal intent nor on the existence of offences such as forgery, cheating, or use of forged documents. Therefore, civil adjudication cannot always be treated as determinative of criminal culpability at the stage of quashment. Moreover, in the case at hand, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....te order passed against him on 08.06.2015 and participate in the suit where the validity of the 3 settlements deeds were one of the issues under consideration. 9. Instead of participating in the civil proceeding, the private complaint filed on 12.10.2021 under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., suppressing the fact that settlement deeds are subject matter in the pending suit. In this regard it can be safely presumed that the 2nd respondent herein had knowledge about the settlement deeds if not earlier at least on the date of receipt of suit summons in O.S.No.2190 of 2014. Whereas no plausible explanation placed by him in his complaint for delay of 6 years in filing the complaint." (emphasis supplied) 30. We are not impressed with the above findings reached by the High Court. In Neeharika Infrastructure Private Limited (supra), this Court had made it clear that while exercising the powers under Section 482 of the Cr.PC, the High Court cannot undertake a roving inquiry into the disputed questions of fact or record findings on the merits of the allegations. On perusal of the above observations of the High Court, we find that the High Court has erred in law by embarking upon an ....