Criminal complaints cannot be quashed only on ground that allegations made therein appear to be of civil nature

Allegations against accused persons were that they created power of attorney and forged signatures of the complainant and made use of power of attorney to execute gift deeds and also sale deeds in respect of the concerned property. The civil suit was also pending before Civil Court.

Having perused the complaint averments, specific allegations are made against the accused that they have indulged in the creation of power of attorney and based on the power of attorney, third party interest is created.

No doubt, a civil suit is also pending before the Court. When the offence of forgery concerning criminal culpability is alleged in the complaint, the Court has to take note of the same and when the contents of the complaint disclose prima facie commission of the offence of forgery, the High Court should not venture to curtail the right of the Investigating Officer who has to investigate the cognizable offence of the alleged complaint. No doubt civil proceedings are also pending before the Court, there cannot be any criminal colour given to the civil dispute. In the case on hand, merely because the suit is pending is not a ground to quash the FIR.

After filing the charge sheet, the Court took cognizance and issued the process. The legality of it is well-settled that when a given set of facts may make out a civil liability as also a criminal offence and only because civil remedy may also be available to the complainant, that itself cannot be a ground to quash criminal proceedings. The real test is whether the allegations disclose a criminal offence or not.

Allegations are specific against the accused that signatures are forged and the complaint discloses prima facie committing of cognizable offence. High Court should not venture to collect material as Appellate Court or interfere with the investigation to be done by the Investigating Officer and the same is the domain of the Investigating Officer.

Appearing Counsel/s : Sri.V. B. Shiva Kumar, Smt. Namitha Mahesh, Smt. Rakshitha D.J.

Conviction under S. 411 IPC for dishonestly receiving stolen property is invalid when the accused persons are acquitted under S. 379 IPC for theft arising from the same transaction.

AIR 2025 SC 3890 : AIROnline 2025 SC 760 Legal principles "In a criminal prosecution, the initial burden is always on the prosecution to discharge.", "Conviction under Section 411 IPC requires that the property is proved to be stolen property.", "If the prosecution fails to establish

Benefit of maternity leave with allowance to Contractual employee

AIROnline 2022 KER 275 An educational society CPAS is an "establishment" under S. 2(1)(b) of Maternity Benefit Act, 1961, as the term covers any establishment under State law, not only commercial entities. Hence MB Act's applicable to contract employees in establishments like CPAS. Further

Legal Principles Regarding First Appeal S. 96 of Civil P C

AIROnline 2025 MAD 723 "Right of first appeal is a substantive, valuable right and not merely procedural.", "Unless expressly excluded by statute, the right of appeal cannot be limited or taken away by subsequent legislation.", "Appeal is a continuation of the suit.", "Judicial

Read next