Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Arvind Dave vs State Of Rajasthan on 28 July, 2026
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2026:RJ-JP:31318]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 2034/2023
CNR: RJHC010249342023
URN: CRLMP / 4426U / 2023
1. Arvind Dave S/o Late Shri Ramratan Dave, Aged About 41
Years, R/o 1-P-50 Old Housing Board Pali Raj.
2. Abhishek Dave S/o Late Shri Ramratan Dave, Aged About
40 Years, Through Caretaker Arvind Dave R/o 1-P-50 Old
Housing Board Pali Raj.
3. Smt. Priyanka Dave W/o Shri Arvind Dave, Aged About 37
Years, R/o 1-P-50 Old Housing Board Pali Raj.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Pooja Dave W/o Vinod Dave D/o Late Shri Ramratan
Dave, R/o Khatriyo Ka Nichala Bass Dantiyo Ki Gali
Barmer Raj.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Amba Lal
For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S.Chandawat,Dy.G.A.
Mr.B.R. Bishnoi
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
Reportable
Date of Conclusion of Arguments : 19/05/2026
Date on which Order is Reserved : 19/05/2026
Full Order or Operative Part : Full Order
Date of Pronouncement : 28/07/2026
By the Court:-
(Uploaded on 28/07/2026 at 06:00:06 PM)
(Downloaded on 28/07/2026 at 10:18:28 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:31318] (2 of 21) [CRLMP-2034/2023]
Grievance
1. By way of filing the instant criminal misc. petition under
Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the
petitioners have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this
Court for quashing of F.I.R. No. 80/2022 dated 18.07.2022
registered at Police Station Transport Nagar, District Pali for
the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471
and 406 of the Indian Penal Code, along with all
consequential proceedings arising therefrom, on the ground
that the continuation of the criminal proceedings amounts to
an abuse of the process of law and warrants interference by
this Court in exercise of its inherent powers.
FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE
2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present petition are
that respondent No.2, namely, Smt. Pooja Dave, lodged a
complaint before the learned Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Pali alleging, inter alia, that she and petitioner
Nos.1 and 2 are the children and legal heirs of late Shri
Ramratan Dave and late Smt. Vijayalakshmi Dave, both of
whom had retired from Government service and had
acquired certain movable as well as immovable properties
during their lifetime. It was alleged that after the demise of
their father on 07.05.2021 and thereafter of their mother on
17.01.2022, disputes arose amongst the siblings with regard
to succession over the estate left behind by the deceased
(Uploaded on 28/07/2026 at 06:00:06 PM)
(Downloaded on 28/07/2026 at 10:18:28 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:31318] (3 of 21) [CRLMP-2034/2023]
parents. The complainant asserted that the petitioners, with
a view to deprive her of her alleged share in the inheritance,
submitted an affidavit before the concerned bank
representing themselves to be the only legal heirs of the
deceased account holder and, on the strength thereof,
succeeded in obtaining release of the amounts lying in
certain bank accounts maintained in the name of late Smt.
Vijayalakshmi. Alleging that such affidavit was false and that
the petitioners had thereby dishonestly withdrawn the
amount standing in the accounts of the deceased while
excluding the complainant from succession, accusations were
levelled that the petitioners had committed offences
punishable under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468 and 471 of
the Indian Penal Code. Acting upon the order passed under
Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., Police Station Transport Nagar,
District Pali registered FIR No.80/2022 dated 18.07.2022
and commenced investigation into the allegations.
3. During the course of investigation, the Investigating Agency
collected the relevant banking records, examined the
witnesses and scrutinised the affidavit furnished before the
bank. Significantly, despite a thorough investigation, the
police did not discover any material demonstrating that the
affidavit or any other document produced by the petitioners
was forged, fabricated, altered or impersonated so as to
constitute a “false document” within the meaning of the
Penal Code. On the contrary, the investigation culminated in
(Uploaded on 28/07/2026 at 06:00:06 PM)
(Downloaded on 28/07/2026 at 10:18:28 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:31318] (4 of 21) [CRLMP-2034/2023]
deletion of the offences punishable under Sections 467, 468
and 471 IPC, thereby implicitly acknowledging the absence
of any material constituting forgery. The factual report
merely proceeds on the premise that the petitioners had
submitted an affidavit claiming themselves to be the legal
heirs of the deceased and that such declaration was allegedly
incorrect because the complainant was also one of the legal
heirs. Thus, even according to the prosecution itself, the
substratum of the prosecution is confined to an alleged
incorrect assertion of heirship in an affidavit submitted
before the bank. The dispute, therefore, essentially revolves
around rival claims of succession over the estate of deceased
parents and the entitlement of the parties to receive the
amounts lying in the bank accounts of the deceased–a
controversy which, ex facie, bears all the trappings of a civil
and succession dispute rather than a criminal offence. It is
under these circumstances that the petitioners have invoked
the inherent jurisdiction of this Court seeking quashing of the
impugned FIR and all consequential proceedings arising
therefrom.
4. Heard learned counsels present for the parties and gone
through the materials available on record.
5. I have bestowed my anxious consideration to the rival
submissions advanced at the Bar and have meticulously
perused the material available on record, including the First
(Uploaded on 28/07/2026 at 06:00:06 PM)
(Downloaded on 28/07/2026 at 10:18:28 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:31318] (5 of 21) [CRLMP-2034/2023]
Information Report, the factual report submitted by the
Investigating Agency and the documents collected during
investigation. The controversy, though sought to be clothed
with allegations of cheating, forgery and criminal breach of
trust, essentially requires this Court to determine whether
the factual allegations, even if accepted in their entirety,
satisfy the indispensable statutory ingredients constituting
the offences alleged. The exercise assumes greater
significance because the jurisdiction under Section 482
Cr.P.C. exists precisely to prevent criminal law from being
employed as an instrument of oppression where the
allegations, taken at their face value, merely disclose a civil
dispute. It is trite that the criminal process cannot be
permitted to become a weapon for settling private scores or
exerting pressure in disputes predominantly governed by
civil rights. The maxim quando aliquid prohibetur ex directo,
prohibetur et per obliquum aptly reminds the Court that
what cannot directly be achieved through civil adjudication
cannot indirectly be accomplished by invoking the coercive
machinery of criminal law.
6. The entire prosecution case, shorn of embellishments,
proceeds on the allegation that the petitioners furnished an
affidavit before the bank declaring themselves to be the legal
heirs of the deceased account holder and, on the strength
thereof, secured release of the money lying in the bank
accounts. Significantly, nowhere does the prosecution allege
(Uploaded on 28/07/2026 at 06:00:06 PM)
(Downloaded on 28/07/2026 at 10:18:28 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:31318] (6 of 21) [CRLMP-2034/2023]
that the petitioners impersonated another person, forged the
signatures of the deceased, fabricated any testamentary
instrument, altered any genuine document or created a
document purporting to have been executed by someone
else. Equally significant is the fact that the investigating
agency itself, after examining the relevant material, found no
basis whatsoever to continue the allegations of forgery and
consequently deleted Sections 467, 468 and 471 IPC from
the case. This circumstance is not merely procedural but
goes to the very root of the prosecution, for once the
allegation of forgery disappears, the remaining accusation is
reduced to an alleged false assertion regarding succession, a
matter fundamentally falling within the domain of civil
adjudication.
7. It deserves emphasis that a claim of legal heirship, even if
ultimately found to be erroneous or legally unsustainable,
does not ipso facto metamorphose into forgery. Every
incorrect statement does not constitute a false document;
every disputed assertion does not amount to fabrication; and
every civil wrong cannot be elevated to the status of a
criminal offence. There exists a clear and fundamental
distinction between making a false claim and making a false
document. Criminal jurisprudence recognises this distinction
because the Penal Code punishes not the mere assertion of a
claim but the dishonest creation or use of a document
answering the statutory definition of forgery. The two
(Uploaded on 28/07/2026 at 06:00:06 PM)
(Downloaded on 28/07/2026 at 10:18:28 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:31318] (7 of 21) [CRLMP-2034/2023]
concepts operate in distinct legal spheres and cannot be
conflated merely because one party disputes the correctness
of the other’s claim.
8. In the present case, the affidavit relied upon by the
prosecution is admittedly an affidavit executed by the
petitioners themselves. They did not sign in the name of the
complainant; they did not impersonate the deceased account
holder; nor did they claim to have been authorised by any
person whose authority they lacked. The affidavit simply
embodies their own assertion that they were entitled to
succeed to the estate. Whether such assertion is factually
correct or legally sustainable is an altogether different
matter, to be adjudicated in appropriate civil or succession
proceedings. However, the mere assertion of a legal
entitlement, even if eventually disproved, cannot by itself
constitute the offence of forgery. If every disputed
declaration of title or heirship were to attract criminal
prosecution for forgery, every inheritance dispute pending
before civil courts would simultaneously assume the
character of a criminal trial, a consequence wholly alien to
settled principles governing criminal jurisprudence.
9. The position becomes even more evident when the factual
report is closely examined. The investigating agency has
nowhere recorded a finding that the affidavit itself was
fabricated, forged or manufactured. The report merely states
(Uploaded on 28/07/2026 at 06:00:06 PM)
(Downloaded on 28/07/2026 at 10:18:28 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:31318] (8 of 21) [CRLMP-2034/2023]
that, according to the complainant, she too was a legal heir
and that the petitioners allegedly excluded her while
submitting the affidavit before the bank. This finding, even if
accepted at its highest, only suggests that the declaration
contained in the affidavit may be disputed. A disputed
declaration is not synonymous with a forged document. The
distinction is neither semantic nor technical; it is substantive
and forms the very foundation upon which the offences
relating to forgery are structured under the Penal Code.
10.Having examined the factual matrix, this Court now proceeds
to analyse whether the allegations satisfy the essential
ingredients of the offences alleged against the petitioners.
Criminal liability cannot rest upon conjectures, assumptions
or the perceived inequity of a party’s conduct. It must
necessarily satisfy the statutory ingredients constituting the
offence alleged. It is a settled canon of criminal jurisprudence
that where the foundational ingredients of an offence are
absent, continuation of criminal proceedings itself becomes
an abuse of the process of law. Criminal law is concerned not
with moral impropriety or civil impropriety but with conduct
which squarely answers the legislative definition of an
offence. Consequently, before a citizen is subjected to the
rigours of a criminal prosecution, the Court is duty-bound to
ascertain whether the allegations, even if accepted in toto,
disclose the commission of the offences alleged. The maxim
(Uploaded on 28/07/2026 at 06:00:06 PM)
(Downloaded on 28/07/2026 at 10:18:28 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:31318] (9 of 21) [CRLMP-2034/2023]
nullum crimen sine lege (there can be no crime without law)
aptly governs the present controversy.
11.The gravamen of the prosecution case is that the petitioners
submitted an affidavit before the concerned bank asserting
themselves to be the legal heirs of the deceased account
holder while allegedly excluding the complainant. At the very
outset, it deserves to be noticed that the affidavit is
admittedly the petitioners’ own affidavit. It does not bear the
signatures of any third person. It is not alleged that the
petitioners impersonated the complainant or the deceased. It
is equally not the case of the prosecution that the affidavit
was executed by pretending to be some other person or
under the authority of a person who had never authorised its
execution. Thus, the document originates from the petitioners
themselves and merely contains their declaration regarding
succession. The controversy, therefore, is not regarding the
identity of the executant but only regarding the correctness
of the declaration contained therein.
12.The distinction between an incorrect statement and a false
document assumes decisive significance. A document does
not become a forged document merely because the
statements contained therein are alleged to be false. Criminal
law recognises a marked distinction between the falsity of the
contents of a document and the falsity of the document itself.
A document becomes “false” in the eye of criminal law only
(Uploaded on 28/07/2026 at 06:00:06 PM)
(Downloaded on 28/07/2026 at 10:18:28 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:31318] (10 of 21) [CRLMP-2034/2023]
when it is brought into existence by impersonation,
unauthorised execution on behalf of another, material
alteration of an existing document or procurement of
execution from a person incapable of understanding its
contents. Unless the document itself answers this statutory
description, the offence of forgery does not arise.
13.In the present case, the petitioners neither claimed that the
affidavit had been executed by the complainant nor purported
to execute it under her authority. They merely asserted that
they themselves were entitled to inherit the estate. Such
assertion may ultimately be adjudged correct or incorrect in
appropriate civil proceedings. It may even expose the maker
to independent legal consequences if found deliberately false.
However, a declaration of legal heirship, even if erroneous,
cannot be equated with the making of a false document.
Criminal jurisprudence has consistently maintained this
distinction because otherwise every disputed declaration of
ownership, succession or title would expose litigants to
prosecution for forgery, thereby obliterating the well-
recognised boundary between civil disputes and criminal
offences.
14.The factual report submitted by the Investigating Agency
itself fortifies this conclusion. Significantly, despite an
elaborate investigation, collection of banking records and
examination of witnesses, the investigating agency found no
(Uploaded on 28/07/2026 at 06:00:06 PM)
(Downloaded on 28/07/2026 at 10:18:28 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:31318] (11 of 21) [CRLMP-2034/2023]
material warranting continuation of offences under Sections
467, 468 and 471 IPC and accordingly deleted the said
offences from the case. This circumstance is of considerable
significance. The investigating agency, after scrutinising the
very affidavit upon which the prosecution is founded, did not
record any finding that the document had been fabricated,
forged, altered or executed by impersonation. The report
merely proceeds on the premise that the petitioners claimed
themselves to be the legal heirs while the complainant also
asserted heirship. Such finding may at best indicate a
disputed claim regarding succession; it does not establish the
commission of forgery.
15.Equally untenable is the allegation under Section 471 IPC.
The offence under Section 471 necessarily presupposes the
existence of a forged document. Unless the prosecution first
establishes that the document used is itself a forged
document in the eye of law, the question of fraudulently using
such forged document does not arise. Once the very
foundation of forgery disappears, the allegation of using a
forged document necessarily collapses. The superstructure
cannot survive after the foundation has ceased to exist.
Consequently, continuation of prosecution under Section 471
would amount to sustaining an accusation which lacks its
indispensable legal substratum.
(Uploaded on 28/07/2026 at 06:00:06 PM)
(Downloaded on 28/07/2026 at 10:18:28 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:31318] (12 of 21) [CRLMP-2034/2023]
16.The allegation of cheating under Section 420 IPC equally fails
to withstand judicial scrutiny. The offence of cheating is not
constituted merely because one party suffers financial
prejudice or another derives pecuniary advantage. The law
insists upon the existence of deception practised upon the
person allegedly cheated, coupled with dishonest inducement
which results in delivery of property or alteration of a
valuable security. Deception is thus the soul of the offence.
Absent deception practised upon the complainant, the offence
cannot stand.
17.Tested on the above principles, the present prosecution
conspicuously lacks the essential ingredients of cheating. The
complainant does not allege that the petitioners induced her
to part with any property. She does not allege that she acted
upon any representation made by the petitioners. She does
not allege that she delivered money or executed any
document on account of any deception practised upon her.
The bank may have acted upon the affidavit submitted by the
petitioners, but that by itself does not satisfy the statutory
ingredients of cheating vis-Ã -vis the complainant. The
complainant was neither deceived into delivering property nor
induced to alter her legal position on account of any
representation made by the petitioners.
18.Even assuming, for the sake of argument, that the
petitioners wrongly asserted exclusive heirship before the
(Uploaded on 28/07/2026 at 06:00:06 PM)
(Downloaded on 28/07/2026 at 10:18:28 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:31318] (13 of 21) [CRLMP-2034/2023]
bank, the consequence would primarily concern the
entitlement of the parties to succeed to the estate of the
deceased. Such dispute squarely falls within the realm of
succession law and civil adjudication. The remedy lies in
seeking declaration of heirship, rendition of accounts,
recovery of the alleged share or other civil reliefs recognised
by law. Criminal prosecution cannot be invoked merely
because one co-heir disputes the assertion of another
regarding succession. The law of inheritance cannot be
converted into an instrument of criminal prosecution merely
because rival heirs assert competing claims over the estate of
the deceased.
19.Much emphasis was laid by the prosecution upon the
allegation that the affidavit submitted before the bank was
false. Even if such allegation is accepted for the purpose of
the present proceedings, the legal consequence does not
automatically become one of forgery. If a person deliberately
files a false affidavit before a competent authority, the law
itself provides specific remedies for such conduct, including
proceedings relating to false evidence, perjury or other
offences specifically attracted by the facts of a given case.
However, every false affidavit is not a forged affidavit.
Likewise, every incorrect declaration does not become a false
document. The distinction is substantive and not merely
terminological. To obliterate this distinction would amount to
enlarging the scope of penal provisions beyond the legislative
(Uploaded on 28/07/2026 at 06:00:06 PM)
(Downloaded on 28/07/2026 at 10:18:28 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:31318] (14 of 21) [CRLMP-2034/2023]
intent, an approach impermissible in criminal jurisprudence
where penal statutes are required to receive strict
construction.
20.This Court is also unable to overlook that the entire dispute
emanates from competing claims over the estate of deceased
parents. Questions relating to the identity of legal heirs, their
respective shares in the estate, entitlement to succession
certificates and distribution of inheritance are pre-eminently
matters falling within the jurisdiction of civil and succession
courts. Criminal law cannot be permitted to overshadow or
supplant these specialised adjudicatory mechanisms. The
maxim “ubi jus ibi remedium” assures every aggrieved party
an appropriate legal remedy; equally, it does not authorise
substitution of one remedy for another where the legislature
has consciously created distinct legal forums governing
distinct rights.
21.Viewed cumulatively, therefore, this Court is of the
considered opinion that the allegations contained in the FIR,
the material collected during investigation and the factual
report submitted by the investigating agency, even if
accepted in their entirety, do not satisfy the indispensable
ingredients constituting offences under Sections 420, 467,
468 or 471 IPC. At their highest, the allegations disclose a
dispute concerning succession and competing claims over
inheritance, coupled with an allegation that the petitioners
(Uploaded on 28/07/2026 at 06:00:06 PM)
(Downloaded on 28/07/2026 at 10:18:28 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:31318] (15 of 21) [CRLMP-2034/2023]
furnished an incorrect declaration before the bank. Such
allegations may furnish a cause of action before an
appropriate civil forum or invite such proceedings as may
otherwise be permissible in law regarding the affidavit, but
they do not justify the continuation of a criminal prosecution
for offences of cheating or forgery. To permit the prosecution
to continue despite the conspicuous absence of the
foundational ingredients of the alleged offences would
amount to allowing the criminal process to be employed for
resolution of what is, in substance, a civil inheritance dispute,
an eventuality which the inherent jurisdiction of this Court
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is specifically designed to prevent.
FINAL FINDINGS
22.Having accorded thoughtful consideration to the rival
submissions and having meticulously scrutinised the FIR, the
factual reports submitted by the Investigating Agency and the
material collected during investigation, this Court is
persuaded to hold that the continuation of the impugned
criminal proceedings would amount to a manifest abuse of
the process of law. Criminal law cannot be invoked merely
because one of the rival claimants to an estate disputes the
entitlement asserted by another. The jurisdiction of the
criminal court is attracted only when the allegations satisfy
the indispensable statutory ingredients constituting the
offence alleged. In the present case, the prosecution, even if
(Uploaded on 28/07/2026 at 06:00:06 PM)
(Downloaded on 28/07/2026 at 10:18:28 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:31318] (16 of 21) [CRLMP-2034/2023]
accepted in its entirety, fails to traverse this indispensable
legal threshold.
23.The entire edifice of the prosecution rests upon the
allegation that the petitioners furnished an affidavit before
the bank declaring themselves to be the legal heirs of late
Smt. Vijayalakshmi and, on the strength thereof, withdrew
the amounts lying in the bank accounts. Significantly, the
prosecution nowhere alleges that the petitioners
impersonated any person, forged the signature of the
complainant or the deceased, fabricated any testamentary
instrument, altered an existing document or executed any
document in the name or under the authority of another
person. The affidavit relied upon by the prosecution is
admittedly an affidavit executed by the petitioners
themselves. The dispute concerns the correctness of the
declaration contained therein and not the identity of the
executants.
24.The distinction between an incorrect declaration and a false
document is too fundamental to be ignored. Criminal law
does not criminalise every erroneous assertion of fact. A
document does not become forged merely because its
contents are disputed or because the claim asserted therein
is ultimately found to be unsustainable. A false claim
regarding ownership, title or succession cannot automatically
be equated with the making of a false document. Unless the
(Uploaded on 28/07/2026 at 06:00:06 PM)
(Downloaded on 28/07/2026 at 10:18:28 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:31318] (17 of 21) [CRLMP-2034/2023]
document itself satisfies the statutory requirements of a
“false document”, the offences relating to forgery remain
wholly inapplicable. To hold otherwise would obliterate the
carefully maintained distinction between civil disputes
concerning rights and criminal offences affecting public
justice.
25.Equally significant is the circumstance that the Investigating
Agency itself, after conducting an elaborate investigation,
collecting banking records and examining all relevant
witnesses, deleted the offences punishable under Sections
467, 468 and 471 IPC. The factual report does not record any
finding that the affidavit was fabricated, forged, altered or
executed through impersonation. On the contrary, the report
merely concludes that according to the complainant she was
also a legal heir and that the petitioners had excluded her
while furnishing the affidavit before the bank. Thus, even the
prosecution material stops considerably short of establishing
the existence of any forged document. Once the very
foundation of forgery disappears, the allegation under Section
471 IPC necessarily collapses, for a document which is not
forged cannot legally become a forged document merely
because one of the parties disputes the correctness of its
contents.
26.Likewise, the ingredients of Section 420 IPC are equally
conspicuous by their absence. The offence of cheating
(Uploaded on 28/07/2026 at 06:00:06 PM)
(Downloaded on 28/07/2026 at 10:18:28 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:31318] (18 of 21) [CRLMP-2034/2023]
necessarily postulates deception practised upon the person
allegedly cheated and dishonest inducement resulting in
delivery of property or alteration of a valuable security. The
complainant was never induced by the petitioners to part with
her property. She was not persuaded to execute any
document. She did not alter her legal position on account of
any representation made by the petitioners. The allegations
merely indicate that the bank acted upon the affidavit
submitted by the petitioners. Such circumstances may give
rise to questions concerning succession, entitlement or
distribution of the estate, but they do not satisfy the essential
statutory ingredients constituting the offence of cheating as
contemplated by law.
27.The Court also finds considerable force in the submission
advanced on behalf of the petitioners that merely because an
affidavit is alleged to contain an incorrect declaration
regarding legal heirship, it does not automatically become a
forged document. If the complainant genuinely believes that
the affidavit contains false statements, the law itself provides
distinct statutory remedies for initiating proceedings in
accordance with law for filing a false affidavit, if the
ingredients thereof are otherwise established. However, the
existence of such independent remedies itself demonstrates
that every allegedly false affidavit is not intended by the
legislature to constitute forgery. Acceptance of the
prosecution’s submission would render the distinction
(Uploaded on 28/07/2026 at 06:00:06 PM)
(Downloaded on 28/07/2026 at 10:18:28 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:31318] (19 of 21) [CRLMP-2034/2023]
between perjury, false declaration and forgery wholly illusory,
thereby enlarging the scope of penal provisions beyond their
legislative intent.
28.It also deserves emphasis that the present controversy
essentially concerns competing claims of succession amongst
siblings over the estate of their deceased parents. Such
disputes are ordinarily adjudicated by competent civil courts
or succession courts upon appreciation of evidence regarding
inheritance, succession and entitlement. Criminal prosecution
cannot be permitted to supplant those adjudicatory
mechanisms merely because one claimant disputes the
declaration made by another. The maxim actus curiae
neminem gravabit obliges constitutional courts to ensure that
judicial process itself does not become an instrument of
oppression, while the maxim quando aliquid prohibetur ex
directo, prohibetur et per obliquum equally mandates that
criminal law should not be indirectly employed for securing
what is essentially a civil advantage.
29.The inherent jurisdiction preserved under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
exists precisely to prevent such misuse of criminal process.
Where the allegations, taken at their face value, fail to
constitute the ingredients of the offences alleged and
continuation of criminal proceedings would merely compel
parties to undergo the ordeal of a criminal trial
notwithstanding the conspicuous absence of criminality, the
(Uploaded on 28/07/2026 at 06:00:06 PM)
(Downloaded on 28/07/2026 at 10:18:28 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:31318] (20 of 21) [CRLMP-2034/2023]
constitutional obligation of this Court is to interdict such
proceedings at the threshold. Permitting the prosecution to
continue despite the absence of the foundational ingredients
of cheating and forgery would not advance the cause of
criminal justice; rather, it would convert criminal law into a
coercive mechanism for resolution of a purely private
inheritance dispute. Such an approach is wholly impermissible
in law.
30.Consequently, this Court is of the considered opinion that the
allegations contained in the FIR, the material collected during
investigation and the factual reports submitted by the
Investigating Agency, even if accepted in their entirety,
disclose no offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468
or 471 IPC. The dispute is overwhelmingly civil in character
and revolves around rival claims of succession. The
continuation of criminal proceedings in such circumstances
would amount to an abuse of the process of the Court and
would result in miscarriage of justice.
OPERATIVE ORDER
31.Consequently, the criminal misc. petition succeeds and is
hereby allowed.
32.FIR No.80/2022 dated 18.07.2022 registered at Police
Station Transport Nagar, District Pali for the offences under
Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 406 IPC, together with all
consequential proceedings arising therefrom, including the
(Uploaded on 28/07/2026 at 06:00:06 PM)
(Downloaded on 28/07/2026 at 10:18:28 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:31318] (21 of 21) [CRLMP-2034/2023]
investigation, charge-sheet, if any, and every proceeding
founded upon the impugned FIR, are hereby quashed and set
aside qua the present petitioners.
33.It is, however, clarified that this Court has expressed no
opinion on the inter se civil rights, succession, inheritance or
proprietary claims of the parties, which shall remain open to
be adjudicated before the competent civil forum in
accordance with law. It is further clarified that if any
competent authority is otherwise empowered under law to
examine the correctness of the affidavit or initiate
proceedings specifically contemplated by statute in relation
thereto, this order shall not preclude such authority from
acting strictly in accordance with law. Subject to the above
clarification, all pending applications, if any, also stand
disposed of.
(FARJAND ALI),J
193/Mamta Tak/330
(Uploaded on 28/07/2026 at 06:00:06 PM)
(Downloaded on 28/07/2026 at 10:18:28 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
