MANPREET v. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, P.S. Durg, District Durg Chhattisgarh

Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

12.08.2026

#1. Heard Mr. Vedant Bhelonde, learned counsel for the petitioner in 3 CRMP No. 405/2022 and Mr. Abhishek Sinha, learned Senior Advocate along with Mr. Aditya Pandey and Mr. Ghyansham Patel, learned counsel for the petitioner in CRMP No. 1047/2021 as well as Mr. Shashank Thakur, learned Additional Advocate for respondent/State and Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, learned Senior Advocate along with Mr. Arpan Verma, learned counsel for respondent- Sunil Agrawal.

#2. The petitioner has filed CRMP No. 1047/2021 with following prayer: “A. That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the FIR registered against the Petitioner in FIR number 996 of 2013 by Police Station - Durg, District - Durgon 31/10/2013 for offence punishable under Section 420, 467, 468, 471 and 34 of the IPC. B. The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the Final Report No. 970/2019 submitted under Section 173 of the Cr.P.C. on 29/11/2019 for offence under Section 420, 467, 468, 471 and 34 of the IPC, against the Petitioner. C. The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash betheorder dt. 30/11/2019 whereby Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Durg has taken cognizance against the petitioner and also quash the Criminal Case No. 10427/2019 State of C.G. vs. Anil Agrawal &Ors. against the Petitioner emanating from FIR No. 996/2013 pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg, 4 Chhattisgarh.”

#3. The petitioner has filed CRMP No. 405/2022 with following prayer: “A. That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the FIR registered against the Petitioners in FIR number 996 of 2013 by Police Station Durg, District Durg on 31.10.2013 for offence punishable under Section 420, 467, 468, 471 and 34 of the IPC. B. The Hon'ble Court may kindly be plased to quash the Final Report No. 970/2019 submitted under section 173 of the Cr.P.C. on 29.11.2019 for offence under Section 420, 467, 468, 471 and 34 of the IPC, against the Petitioners. C. The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the order dt. 30.11.2019 whereby Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Durg has taken cognizance against the petitioners and also quash the Criminal case No. 10427/2019 - State of C.G. vs Anil Agrawal & Ors against the Petitioners emanating from FIR No. 996/2013 pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate Fist Class, Durg, Chhattisgarh.”

#4. Brief facts giving rise to both the petitions are that respondent No.2/complainant, Sunil Agrawal, lodged a complaint on

31.10.2013 alleging that certain immovable properties situated at Village Jamul, P.H. No.13, R.N.M. Durg-1, which according to him formed part of the joint family property and originally belonged to his deceased mother Smt. Angoori Devi Agrawal, had been illegally alienated on the strength of forged General Power of 5 Attorneys. It was alleged that the accused persons, in furtherance of their common intention, forged the signatures of Smt. Angoori Devi on the General Power of Attorneys dated 03.03.2007 and, acting upon such documents, executed sale deeds in respect of the properties in their own favour, thereby causing wrongful loss to the complainant. It was further alleged that petitioner No.5 in CRMP No.405/2022, along with co-accused Nimish Kothare, had signed the General Power of Attorneys as witnesses despite allegedly knowing that the signatures appearing thereon were not those of Smt. Angoori Devi.

#5. On the basis of the aforesaid complaint, FIR No.996/2013 was registered at Police Station Durg for offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. After investigation, the police submitted Final Report No.970/2019 before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Durg on 29.11.2019, alleging commission of the aforesaid offences by the accused persons. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Durg, vide order dated 30.11.2019, took cognizance under Section 190(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, pursuant to which Regular Criminal Case No.10427/2019 came to be instituted and is pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg.

#6. The case of the petitioners in CRMP No.405/2022, in substance, is that the transaction in question was a genuine sale transaction 6 entered into pursuant to the consent and authority granted by Smt. Angoori Devi. It is stated that the purchasers had issued a demand draft dated 01.03.2007 for a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- in favour of Smt. Angoori Devi, which was deposited in her HDFC Bank account at Mumbai on 05.03.2007. Smt. Angoori Devi is also stated to have executed a receipt dated 02.03.2007 acknowledging receipt of the aforesaid consideration and the sale of the subject properties. Thereafter, on 03.03.2007, she executed separate General Power of Attorneys in favour of petitioner Nos.1 to 4 authorising them to deal with the respective parcels of land. Acting upon the said General Power of Attorneys, the petitioners executed sale deeds dated 31.03.2007 in respect of the respective properties for an aggregate consideration of Rs.10,00,000/-.

#7. The petitioners further rely upon a forensic opinion obtained from Helik Advisory, according to which the disputed signatures appearing on the General Power of Attorneys and the admitted signatures of Smt. Angoori Devi appearing on the partnership deeds and other documents were opined to be of the same person, and the variations were capable of being attributable to her advanced age and health condition. It is further stated that the signature of Smt. Angoori Devi was certified by the concerned bank officer on 02.03.2007 when her signature was obtained in his presence. The petitioners also rely upon the publication dated

07.03.2007 in the newspaper “Navbharat”, whereby objections 7 from the general public were invited in relation to the proposed transaction.

#8. It is further the case of the petitioners in CRMP No.405/2022 that respondent No.2 had, even prior to registration of the impugned FIR, instituted civil proceedings questioning the very same transactions. The complainant had filed Civil Suit No.34-A/2009 before the Civil Judge, Class-II, Durg, seeking, inter alia, declaration in respect of the properties and questioning the sale deeds executed pursuant to the General Power of Attorneys. His application for temporary injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure was dismissed on merits vide order dated 17.09.2010. The appeal preferred against the said order was also dismissed by the learned District Judge, Durg vide order dated 28.10.2011. The subsequent writ petition, being WPC No.79/2012, was also not pursued by the complainant and came to be disposed of. The civil suit itself was subsequently dismissed in default on 18.08.2015, and the application seeking restoration of the suit was dismissed vide order dated 16.07.2021.

#9. It is also stated that the complainant had initiated proceedings under Sections 145 and 146 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Chhavni, Durg, concerning the same property dispute. The said proceedings were dismissed vide order dated 04.10.2019 on the ground that the complainant 8 had already availed the remedy of civil suit. The criminal revision preferred thereagainst was also dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Durg vide order dated 09.12.2020. The complainant had further challenged the mutation proceedings before the revenue authorities, and the order passed by the Board of Revenue was subsequently challenged before this Court in WPC Nos.1609/2021, 1613/2021, 1621/2021 and 1640/2021, wherein interim protection was granted vide orders dated 19.03.2021 and 22.03.2021.

#10. The case of the petitioner in CRMP No.1047/2021 stands on a distinct factual footing. The said petitioner is a practising Advocate and Solicitor at Bombay and claims that, in the course of his professional duties, he had attended the residence of Anil Agrawal on 03.03.2007 and had witnessed/identified the signatures of Smt. Angoori Devi on three General Power of Attorneys. According to the petitioner, he had no role either in the transaction of sale or in preparation or execution of the sale deeds and had merely identified the signature of Smt. Angoori Devi on the said documents.

#11. The petitioner in CRMP No.1047/2021 further submits that, in the earlier civil proceedings instituted by respondent No.2, no allegation whatsoever had been levelled against him and he was not impleaded as a party. According to him, the case pleaded by respondent No.2 in the earlier civil proceedings was materially 9 different from the subsequent criminal allegation. In the civil proceedings, the allegation was that Anil Agrawal had obtained the signatures of their mother by exercising undue influence, whereas in the subsequent criminal proceedings, the allegation was that the signatures themselves had been forged. The petitioner contends that the two stands are mutually inconsistent and that the subsequent allegation of forgery was introduced only after the complainant failed to obtain the desired relief in the civil proceedings.

#12. The petitioner in CRMP No.1047/2021 also relies upon the order dated 27.06.2019 passed in Anticipatory Bail Application No.698/2019 by the learned Seventh Additional Sessions Judge, Durg, and submits that, on the same cause of action, an earlier FIR bearing No.513/2013 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 34 of the IPC had been registered alleging forgery of the very same General Power of Attorneys and that the said proceedings had ultimately been closed. It is therefore contended that the subsequent registration of FIR No.996/2013 on the same allegations is impermissible and amounts to an abuse of the process of law. The larger bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hira Lal Jain vs. Delhi Administration (1973 (3) SCC 398), while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 has held that an advocate cannot be held liable for forgery, cheating, conspiracy, etc. for identification of a client. The Hon’ble Apex Court confirmed that identification of a client is a normal practice of 10 lawyers and it cannot be a ground for conspiracy charge. Sections involved there- 120B, 419, 420, 511, 467, 471. In the present case, the record shows that other than identification, there are no allegations against the petitioner. The petitioner was only doing things which are within the professional duties expected of him under the Advocates Act and without any material, should not be roped in for conspiracy. Hira Lal Jain's case (supra) has been followed by various decisions all over the country, which confirm that an advocate cannot be held liable for mere identification including the judgment of Attar Singh Vs. State of Punjab, reported in 1985 SCC OnLine P&H 67.

#13. Both sets of petitioners contend that the allegations contained in the FIR and the material collected during investigation do not disclose the essential ingredients of the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 34 of the IPC against them. It is their common contention that the dispute essentially arises out of the validity of the General Power of Attorneys and the consequential sale transactions, which have already been the subject matter of civil proceedings, and that the criminal prosecution has been initiated as a means to give a criminal colour to an essentially civil dispute. They therefore seek quashing of FIR No.996/2013, Final Report No.970/2019 dated

29.11.2019, the order dated 30.11.2019 taking cognizance, and the consequential proceedings in Regular Criminal Case No.10427/2019 pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate 11 First Class, Durg.

#14. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2/ complainant, opposing both the petitions, submitted that the FIR was registered on 31.10.2013 against seven accused persons on specific allegations that they had, in furtherance of a common conspiracy, forged the signatures of Smt. Angoori Devi, mother of the complainant, on the General Power of Attorneys and, on the strength of such forged documents, caused execution of registered sale deeds in their own favour, thereby causing wrongful loss to the complainant. It was submitted that Smt. Angoori Devi died on 30.07.2007 and that the disputed signatures appearing on the General Power of Attorneys were examined by the handwriting experts of the State as well as the Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Hyderabad, and the investigation material prima facie indicates that the signatures were forged.

#15. Learned counsel further submitted that, after a detailed investigation, the police filed the Final Report/charge-sheet against seven accused persons, namely, Yadvinder Dulal, Pooja Dulal, Smt. Tankarathi, I.A. Das, Anil Agrawal, Sivan Pillay and Nimish Kothare. The prosecution has collected the original General Power of Attorneys, sale deeds, handwriting expert reports, including the report of S.K. Dhenge, and the reports of the State Examiner and Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Hyderabad. According to respondent No.2, the material collected during investigation prima facie discloses the commission of 12 offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 34 of the IPC and, therefore, the matter ought to be permitted to proceed to trial.

#16. It was contended that the petitioners are essentially seeking appreciation of their defence at the stage of exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. According to respondent No.2, the disputed question as to whether the signatures appearing on the General Power of Attorneys were genuine or forged, the evidentiary value of the handwriting expert reports, the circumstances in which the documents were executed and the actual role played by each of the accused are matters which can appropriately be adjudicated only during trial on the basis of evidence. It was therefore submitted that this Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC, ought not to undertake a detailed appreciation of the defence material or conduct a mini-trial.

#17. Learned counsel further submitted that the pendency or prior institution of civil proceedings in respect of the subject property does not, by itself, bar criminal prosecution where the allegations also disclose ingredients of criminal offences. Reliance was placed upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Mohammed Ibrahim and Others v. State of Bihar and Another, (2009) 8 SCC 751, to contend that a dispute may have a civil or commercial complexion and yet disclose ingredients of criminal offences. It was argued that the mere existence of a civil dispute 13 cannot be made a ground for quashing criminal proceedings if the allegations, taken at their face value, disclose commission of cognizable offences. Reliance is also placed upon a recent judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Accamma Sam Jacob Vs. State of Karnataka and Another, reported in 2026 SCC OnLine SC 585, relevant para of which if quoted hereinbelow: “56. In the facts and circumstances noted above, it was not at all justified for the High Court to have quashed proceedings merely on the ground that the dispute appeared to be civil in nature. It is well settled that the mere existence of a civil remedy does not by itself bar crimind proceedings where the allegations prima facie disclose commission of a on merits and proceeding to quash the order directing investigation, the High Court effectively stifled the investigative process at its inception. Such an approach runs contrary to the principles consistently laid down by this Court.” It was further submitted that the civil suit relied upon by the petitioners was not decided on merits. According to respondent No.2, the suit was dismissed for default and the subsequent application for restoration was also dismissed for want of prosecution, against which proceedings were stated to be pending. The dismissal of the interim application in the said suit, according to the complainant, did not finally adjudicate the rights of the parties in respect of the title or validity of the General Power of Attorneys and sale deeds. It was therefore contended 14 that the petitioners cannot claim that the complainant had finally failed in the civil proceedings and thereafter initiated the criminal case as an afterthought.

#18. Learned counsel also submitted that the delay in lodging the FIR, by itself, cannot constitute a ground for quashing the prosecution where the allegations contained in the FIR disclose commission of an offence. It was argued that the complainant had consistently disputed the legality of the transactions and had pursued remedies in relation to the subject properties, and therefore the mere lapse of time could not nullify the criminal proceedings.

#19. So far as the petitioner in CRMP No.1047/2021 is concerned, learned counsel submitted that his role cannot be brushed aside merely on the ground that he was only a witness to the General Power of Attorneys. According to respondent No.2, the petitioner had identified the alleged executant as well as the witnesses to the documents, and the investigation had revealed circumstances suggesting that the signatures on the documents were forged. It was therefore contended that whether the petitioner had knowledge of the alleged forgery and whether he participated in the alleged conspiracy are questions dependent upon appreciation of evidence and cannot be conclusively determined in proceedings under Section 482 CrPC.

#20. In response to the plea of double jeopardy raised by the petitioner in CRMP No.1047/2021, learned counsel submitted that FIR No.513/2013 relied upon by the petitioner does not operate as a 15 bar to the present prosecution. According to respondent No.2, the present FIR is the only FIR registered in respect of the allegations forming the subject matter of the present prosecution and the circumstances relied upon by the petitioner do not satisfy the requirements of the principle of autrefois acquit or double jeopardy. It was further submitted that the existence and effect of any earlier proceedings cannot be determined merely on the basis of the order relied upon by the petitioner and would depend upon the facts and nature of the earlier case.

#21. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 further submitted that the allegation of forgery is supported by the material collected during investigation, including the handwriting expert reports, and that the evidentiary value or correctness of such reports cannot be conclusively adjudicated in a petition under Section 482 CrPC. It was argued that the petitioners’ reliance upon a private forensic opinion or other documents suggesting genuineness of the signatures constitutes a defence which requires examination at trial.

#22. It was lastly contended that the allegations against petitioner Nos.1 to 4 in CRMP No.405/2022 are specific inasmuch as they are alleged to have acted as power-of-attorney holders and purchasers under the disputed documents, while petitioner No.5 is alleged to have acted as a witness thereto. According to respondent No.2, the circumstances surrounding the execution of the General Power of Attorneys, the alleged forgery of the 16 signatures of Smt. Angoori Devi, the subsequent execution of sale deeds and the respective roles of the accused collectively disclose a prima facie case warranting their prosecution. It is contended that, at the stage of quashing, the Court is required to examine whether the allegations and material collected by the prosecution disclose a prima facie offence and is not required to adjudicate upon the truth or falsity of the allegations.

#23. On the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel for respondent No.2 prayed for dismissal of both the petitions, contending that the FIR, the Final Report and the material collected during investigation disclose sufficient grounds for proceeding against the petitioners and that no exceptional circumstance warranting exercise of inherent jurisdiction of this Court for quashing the criminal proceedings has been made out.

#24. Learned Additional Advocate appearing for the respondent/State, while opposing the petitions, supported the impugned criminal proceedings and submitted that the FIR was registered pursuant to specific allegations of forgery of the signatures of Smt. Angoori Devi on the General Power of Attorneys and the consequential execution of sale deeds. It was submitted that, after investigation, the police collected the original documents, the relevant sale deeds, statements of witnesses and the reports of the handwriting experts, including the report of the State Examiner and the Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Hyderabad, which, according to the prosecution, indicate that the disputed 17 signatures appearing on the General Power of Attorneys were forged. Learned State counsel submitted that the material collected during investigation discloses the prima facie involvement of the accused persons in the alleged offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 34 of the IPC. It was further submitted that the correctness, evidentiary value and effect of the forensic reports, as well as the respective roles and knowledge of the accused persons, are matters to be determined during trial and cannot be conclusively adjudicated upon in proceedings under Section 482 of the CrPC. It was therefore contended that no exceptional circumstance warranting interference with the FIR, Final Report or the consequential criminal proceedings has been made out and both the petitions deserve to be dismissed.

#25. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents appended with petition.

#26. The legal position on the issue of quashing of criminal proceedings is well-settled that the jurisdiction to quash a complaint, FIR or a charge-sheet should be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional cases and Courts should not ordinarily interfere with the investigations of cognizable offences. However, where the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint even if 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, the FIR or the charge-sheet may be quashed in exercise of powers under Article 226 or inherent powers under 18 Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. (now 528 of the B.N.S.S.).

#27. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of Rupan Deol Bajaj v. K.P.S. Gill reported in (1995) SCC (Cri) 1059, Rajesh Bajaj v. State of NCT of Delhi reported in (1999) 3 SCC 259 and Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd. v. Biological E Ltd. & Ors reported in 2000 SCC (Cri) 615, the Supreme Court clearly held that if a prima facie case is made out disclosing the ingredients of the offence, Court should not quash the complaint. However, it was held that if the allegations do not constitute any offence as alleged and appear to be patently absurd and improbable, Court should not hesitate to quash the complaint. The note of caution was reiterated that while considering such petitions the Courts should be very circumspect, conscious and careful. Thus, there is no controversy about the legal proposition that in case a prima facie case is made out, the FIR or the proceedings in consequence thereof cannot be quashed.

#28. In Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 315, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has authoritatively settled the scope of the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (now Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023). The Apex Court has held that the power to quash criminal proceedings is required to be exercised sparingly, with circumspection and only in the rarest of rare cases. It has been categorically observed that while considering a prayer for 19 quashing an FIR or criminal proceedings, the High Court cannot embark upon an enquiry into the reliability, genuineness or otherwise of the allegations contained in the FIR, nor can it appreciate the evidence or conduct a mini trial. The Court is only required to examine whether the allegations, if taken at their face value, disclose the commission of a cognizable offence. The Supreme Court further emphasized that criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the threshold, that investigation into cognizable offences should ordinarily be permitted to proceed unhindered, and that the extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. must be exercised with great caution and self- restraint, save in exceptional cases where non-interference would result in manifest miscarriage of justice.

#29. Very recently, in Pradeep Kumar Kesharwani v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another (Criminal Appeal No. 3831 of 2025, decided on 02.09.2025), the Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated the aforesaid principles and further held that while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (now Section 528 of the BNSS), the High Court cannot adjudicate disputed questions of fact or evaluate the evidentiary worth of the material collected during investigation. Unless all these parameters are cumulatively satisfied, the High Court ought not to interfere in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction, leaving the parties to establish their respective cases before the trial Court in accordance with law.

#30. Tested on the touchstone of the aforesaid principles, this Court is 20 required to examine whether the allegations contained in the FIR and the material collected during investigation, taken at their face value, disclose the commission of the offences alleged against the petitioners, without embarking upon an enquiry into the correctness or otherwise of such material. In the present case, the gravamen of the prosecution allegation is that the General Power of Attorneys dated 03.03.2007, purportedly executed by Smt. Angoori Devi, contained her forged signatures and that, acting upon such documents, the accused persons caused execution of registered sale deeds in respect of the subject properties. The investigation has not rested merely upon the allegations contained in the FIR, the original General Power of Attorneys and the consequential sale deeds have been collected and the disputed signatures have been subjected to forensic examination. The prosecution has relied upon the reports of the handwriting experts, including the State Examiner and the Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Hyderabad, which, according to the prosecution, opine against the genuineness of the signatures of Smt. Angoori Devi appearing on the disputed General Power of Attorneys. Thus, at this stage, it cannot be said that the allegation of forgery is wholly unsupported by the material collected during investigation.

#31. So far as petitioner Nos.1 to 4 in CRMP No.405/2022 are concerned, the prosecution case specifically attributes to them the role of power-of-attorney holders and purchasers under the 21 disputed transactions. The allegation is that they acted upon the General Power of Attorneys purportedly executed by Smt. Angoori Devi and thereafter executed the sale deeds in their own favour. Whether the General Power of Attorneys were genuinely executed by Smt. Angoori Devi, whether the signatures appearing thereon were forged, whether the petitioners had knowledge of such alleged forgery and whether they acted in furtherance of a common intention are matters which necessarily require appreciation of the documentary and oral evidence. At this stage, the Court cannot weigh the competing versions or determine the evidentiary value of the respective forensic opinions.

#32. The petitioners, however, have relied upon the demand draft, bank records, receipt, signature certification by the bank, newspaper publication, the General Power of Attorneys, the subsequent sale deeds and the private forensic opinion to contend that the transaction was genuine and that the signatures of Smt. Angoori Devi were in fact genuine. These documents may constitute relevant material in support of the defence of the petitioners. Nevertheless, in view of the settled parameters governing exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., this Court cannot undertake a comparative assessment of the private forensic opinion vis-à-vis the reports relied upon by the prosecution, nor can it determine at this stage which of the rival versions is correct. Such an exercise would necessarily amount to appreciation of evidence and conducting a mini-trial, which is 22 impermissible at the stage of quashing.

#33. The contention that the dispute is essentially civil in nature also does not, by itself, persuade this Court to terminate the criminal proceedings at the threshold. The existence of a civil dispute concerning the title to the property or validity of the sale deeds is not an absolute bar to criminal prosecution if the allegations and the material collected during investigation also disclose the ingredients of criminal offences as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Accamma Sam Jacob (Supra). In the present case, the prosecution allegation is not confined merely to invalidity of the sale transaction, it is founded upon the specific allegation that the signatures of Smt. Angoori Devi were forged on the General Power of Attorneys and that such allegedly forged documents were thereafter used for bringing about the sale transactions. The question whether this allegation is ultimately established by legally admissible evidence is a matter for the trial Court.

#34. The previous civil proceedings relied upon by the petitioners also do not, at this stage, furnish a ground for quashing the criminal proceedings. It is not in dispute that the civil suit instituted by respondent No.2 was ultimately dismissed for default and that the application for restoration was also dismissed, against which proceedings were stated to be pending. More importantly, the rejection of an interlocutory application in the earlier civil proceedings did not finally adjudicate the allegation of forgery of 23 the General Power of Attorneys. Therefore, the orders passed in those proceedings cannot, at the present stage, be treated as a determination conclusively negativing the prosecution case.

#35. The contention regarding delay in lodging the FIR also cannot, in the facts of the present case, by itself justify quashing of the prosecution. The delay may constitute a circumstance relevant to the appreciation of the prosecution case during trial, but where the FIR contains specific allegations of forgery and use of the allegedly forged documents and the investigation has collected supporting material, the mere passage of time does not furnish sufficient ground for exercising the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court to stifle the prosecution at its inception.

#36. However, the position of the petitioner in CRMP No.1047/2021 requires separate consideration. The said petitioner is not alleged to be a purchaser under the sale deeds. The specific case against him, as emerging from the FIR and the prosecution material, is essentially that he identified the alleged executant and witnesses on the General Power of Attorneys. The prosecution attributes significance to his having identified the signatures and contends that he was consequently a participant in the alleged conspiracy. Whether such identification was made knowingly, whether the petitioner was aware of any alleged forgery and whether his conduct was pursuant to any prior agreement or common intention are questions which depend upon the evidence proposed to be led by the prosecution.

#37. At the same time, the mere fact that a person attested or 24 identified a document does not, by itself and without anything further, establish the ingredients of cheating, forgery or use of a forged document. The prosecution must ultimately establish the requisite knowledge, intention and participation necessary to attract the offences alleged. However, at the stage of Section 482 Cr.P.C., the Court is not required to determine whether such ingredients will ultimately be proved beyond reasonable doubt. The question is whether the allegations and material collected during investigation disclose a prima facie basis for proceeding against the petitioner. The prosecution has relied upon the circumstances surrounding the identification of the disputed documents, the forensic material concerning the signatures and the alleged identification of the witnesses and executant. Whether these circumstances are sufficient to establish the petitioner’s culpable participation is a matter which must be tested on evidence at trial.

#38. Likewise, the plea founded upon the alleged earlier FIR No.513/2013 and the principle of double jeopardy cannot, on the material presently placed before this Court, furnish a ground for quashing the present proceedings. The applicability of the constitutional and statutory protection against double jeopardy depends upon the identity of the offence, the nature of the earlier proceedings and the manner in which they culminated. The material placed before this Court does not warrant a conclusion 25 that the petitioner had already been tried and acquitted for the very same offence so as to attract the bar contemplated under law. The said contention, therefore, does not merit acceptance at this stage.

#39. Thus, upon a conspectus of the allegations in the FIR, the Final Report and the material collected during investigation, this Court finds that the prosecution case cannot be characterised as one where, even if the allegations are accepted in their entirety, no offence is disclosed. There is prima facie material concerning the disputed General Power of Attorneys, the alleged forgery of the signatures of Smt. Angoori Devi, the consequential sale deeds and the respective roles attributed to the accused persons. The rival claim of the petitioners that the transaction was genuine and that the signatures were genuine, supported by their documents and private expert opinion, raises disputed questions of fact which cannot be conclusively adjudicated in exercise of inherent jurisdiction.

#40. Consequently, this Court is of the considered view that the present case does not fall within the exceptional category warranting exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., now Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023. Accordingly, the present petitions stands dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Manpreet