Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.:

1. The present revisional application has been preferred praying for quashing of proceedings in Kalyani FIR No. 363/22 being Charge Sheet No. 400 under Sections 341/323/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. The petitioners’ case is that the de facto complainant is his maternal grandmother and she voluntarily desired to register a gift deed out of natural love and affection. A gift deed was registered on 15th May, 2019 in the office at A.D.S.R., Kalyani, Nadia, recorded in Book No. 1, Volume No. 1303-2019, Pages from 36831 to 36845, being No. 13031943 for the year 2019.

3. The petitioner No. 1 on the basis of the Gift Deed made an application for mutation before the competent authority. In course of mutation proceeding, a notice was served upon the de facto complainant for hearing. The competent authority i.e. Gayeshpur Municipality was duly satisfied and recorded the name of the petitioner no. 1 and expunged the name of the De facto complainant from the Assessment Role and issued a Certificate of Mutation by letter dated 13.08.2019.

4. The petitioner no. 1 together with his mother namely Tara Dey took house building loan from the LIC HFL, in the year 2020 for erecting residential accommodation. The petitioner no. 1 and his mother kept the said Deed of Gift as a collateral security for sanction and disbursement of house building loan.

5. The petitioner no. 1 and his mother took house building loan of about Rs. 25,00,000/- in two instalments from the LIC HFL and erected a two storied residential house.

6. In the mean time petitioner no. 1 got Government service at Dharmada Primary Health Center at Bethuadahari, Nadia. He got appointment in the said Primary Health Center by virtue of an order of the Chief Medical Officer of Health being Memo No. CMOH/Nad dated 21.06.2019, Krishnanagar.

7. The petitioners here are husband and wife.

8. Petitioner no.1 was allotted government quarter at Bethuadahari, Nadia.

9. The petitioners started to live in the said Government quarter with his wife, the petitioner no. 2. The petitioners politely requested the de facto complainant and their family members including parents of the petitioner No. 1 to sell out the said property and to foreclose the loan amount of LIC HFL with the said amount and stated that rest of the amount would be utilized for purchasing a residential accommodation near the petitioner no. 1’s place of work at Dharmada Primary Health Center, Bethuadahari, Nadia. The family members raised an objection. This was the starting point for dispute between the petitioners and their family members.

10. It is stated by the petitioners that the family members of the petitioners along with the de facto complainant restrained the petitioners from entering the residential accommodation during the weekends.

11. The petitioner no. 1 then moved an application under Section 144 Cr.P.C.

12. The de facto complainant filed a suit for Declaration and injunction in T.S. No. 30 of 2022 before the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Kalyani, Nadia on 19th February, 2022. The petitioner no. 1 received summons from the learned trial Court and filed written statement.

13. On 6.7.2022 the de facto complainant filed a complaint against the petitioners before the Kalyani Police Station and the FIR was registered for offence punishable under Sections 420/406 IPC.

14. On completion of investigation charge sheet has been filed for offence punishable under Sections 341/323/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

15. Apprehending sale of the property by the petitioner no. 1, the present case has been initiated.

16. The sale of the said property has been stopped by way of order of injunction from the Civil Court. Dispute is before the Civil Court.

17. The dispute in this case is a family property dispute thus civil in nature.

18. This Court relies upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Birla Corporation Ltd. vs. Adventz Investments and holdings, Criminal Appeal No. 875 of 2019 with Criminal Appeal No. 877 of 2019, wherein the Court held:-

“……..86. In Indian Oil Corpn. v. NEPC India Ltd. and Others (2006) 6 SCC 736, the Supreme Court after observing that there is a growing tendency in business circles to convert powerful civil disputes in criminal cases held as under:-

“14. While no one with a legitimate cause or grievance should be prevented from seeking remedies available in criminal law, a complainant who initiates or persists with a prosecution, being fully aware that the criminal proceedings are unwarranted and his remedy lies only in civil law, should himself be made accountable, at the end of such misconceived criminal proceedings, in accordance with law. One positive step that can be taken by the courts, to curb unnecessary prosecutions and harassment of innocent parties, is to exercise their power under Section 250 CrPC more frequently, where they discern malice or frivolousness or ulterior motives on the part of the complainant. Be that as it may………”

(Medmeme LLC & Ors. vs. M/s. Ihorse BPO Solutions Pvt. Ltd. (2018)13 SCC 374)."

19. In M/s. Indian Oil Corporation vs. M/s NEPC India Ltd. & Ors., Appeal (crl.) 834 of 2002 decided on 20.07.2006, the Supreme Court considered the following point among the two points decided.

“……..8. The High Court by common judgment dated 23.3.2001 allowed both the petitions and quashed the two complaints. It accepted the second ground urged by the Respondents herein, but rejected the first ground. The said order of the High Court is under challenge in these appeals. On the rival contentions urged, the following points arise for consideration :

(i) Whether existence or availment of civil remedy in respect of disputes arising from breach of contract, bars remedy under criminal law

(ii) Whether the allegations in the complaint, if accepted on face value, constitute any offence under sections 378, 403, 405, 415 or 425 IPC

Re : Point No. (i) :

9. The principles relating to exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash complaints and criminal proceedings have been stated and reiterated by this Court in several decisions. To mention a few - Madhavrao Jiwaji Rao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre [1988 (1) SCC 692], State of Haryana vs. Bhajanlal [1992 Supp (1) SCC 335], Rupan Deol Bajaj vs. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill [1995 (6) SCC 194], Central Bureau of Investigation v. Duncans Agro Industries Ltd., [1996 (5) SCC 591], State of Bihar vs. Rajendra Agrawalla [1996 (8) SCC 164], Rajesh Bajaj v. State NCT of Delhi, [1999 (3) SCC 259], Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd. v. Biological E. Ltd. [2000 (3) SCC 269], Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma v. State of Bihar [2000 (4) SCC 168], M. Krishnan vs Vijay Kumar [2001 (8) SCC 645], and Zandu Phamaceutical Works Ltd. v. Mohd. Sharaful Haque [2005 (1) SCC 122]. The principles, relevant to our purpose are :

(i) A complaint can be quashed where the allegations made in 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 the case alleged against the accused.

For this purpose, the complaint has to be examined as a whole, but without examining the merits of the allegations. Neither a detailed inquiry nor a meticulous analysis of the material nor an assessment of the reliability or genuineness of the allegations in the complaint, is warranted while examining prayer for quashing of a complaint.

(ii) A complaint may also be quashed where it is a clear abuse of the process of the court, as when the criminal proceeding is found to have been initiated with malafides/malice for wreaking vengeance or to cause harm, or where the allegations are absurd and inherently improbable.

(iii) The power to quash shall not, however, be used to stifle or scuttle a legitimate prosecution. The power should be used sparingly and with abundant caution.

(iv) The complaint is not required to verbatim reproduce the legal ingredients of the offence alleged. If the necessary factual foundation is laid in the complaint, merely on the ground that a few ingredients have not been stated in detail, the proceedings should not be quashed. Quashing of the complaint is warranted only where the complaint is so bereft of even the basic facts which are absolutely necessary for making out the offence.

(v) A given set of facts may make out : (a) purely a civil wrong; or (b) purely a criminal offence; or (c) a civil wrong as also a criminal offence. A commercial transaction or a contractual dispute, apart from furnishing a cause of action for seeking remedy in civil law, may also involve a criminal offence. As the nature and scope of a civil proceedings are different from a criminal proceeding, the mere fact that the complaint relates to a commercial transaction or breach of contract, for which a civil remedy is available or has been availed, is not by itself a ground to quash the criminal proceedings. The test is whether the allegations in the complaint disclose a criminal offence or not.

10. While on this issue, it is necessary to take notice of a growing tendency in business circles to convert purely civil disputes into criminal cases. This is obviously on account of a prevalent impression that civil law remedies are time consuming and do not adequately protect the interests of lenders/creditors. Such a tendency is seen in several family disputes also, leading to irretrievable break down of marriages/families. There is also an impression that if a person could somehow be entangled in a criminal prosecution, there is a likelihood of imminent settlement. Any effort to settle civil disputes and claims, which do not involve any criminal offence, by applying pressure though criminal prosecution should be deprecated and discouraged. In G. Sagar Suri vs. State of UP [2000 (2) SCC 636], this Court observed :

"It is to be seen if a matter, which is essentially of civil nature, has been given a cloak of criminal offence. Criminal proceedings are not a short cut of other remedies available in law. Before issuing process a criminal court has to exercise a great deal of caution. For the accused it is a serious matter. This Court has laid certain principles on the basis of which High Court is to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code. Jurisdiction under this Section has to be exercised to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice."

While no one with a legitimate cause or grievance should be prevented from seeking remedies available in criminal law, a complainant who initiates or persists with a prosecution, being fully aware that the criminal proceedings are unwarranted and his remedy lies only in civil law, should himself be made accountable, at the end of such misconceived criminal proceedings, in accordance with law. One positive step that can be taken by the courts, to curb unnecessary prosecutions and harassment of innocent parties, is to exercise their power under section 250 Cr.P.C. more frequently, where they discern malice or frivolousness or ulterior motives on the part of the complainant. Be that as it may………”

20. The Supreme Court in Randheer Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., (2021) 14 SCC 626, held:-

“……..18. The only question is whether there is any criminal offence disclosed in the FIR so far as the Appellant is concerned. When the High Court passed its order dated 5th October, 2017, Rajan Kumar (since deceased), the executant of the sale deed and the Power of Attorney holder was also an applicant before the Court. Today, there has been a change in situation, in that, criminal proceedings against Rajan Kumar have abated since Rajan Kumar is no longer alive. It is the case of the private respondent that the private respondent purchased property. In the meantime, Rajan Kumar, who is no longer alive, on the basis of a false Power of Attorney of Bela Rani, executed a sale deed in favour of Randheer Singh, i.e., the Appellant herein. There is only a vague averment “by connivance”. The next part of the sentence reads “Bela Rani had no right to sell the aforesaid plot.”

23. Even though an FIR need not contain every detail, an offence has to be made out in the FIR itself. It is the case of the Private Respondents that Bela Rani has no title. Bela Rani executed a false Power of Attorney in favour of Rajan Kumar (since deceased). Alternatively, the Power of Attorney, in itself, was a forged document.

24. A fraudulent, fabricated or forged deed could mean a deed which was not actually executed, but a deed which had fraudulently been manufactured by forging the signature of the ostensible executants. It is one thing to say that Bela Rani fraudulently executed a Power of Attorney authorising the sale of property knowing that she had no title to convey the property. It is another thing to say that the Power of Attorney itself was a forged, fraudulent, fabricated or manufactured one, meaning thereby that it had never been executed by Bela Rani. Her signature had been forged. It is impossible to fathom how the investigating authorities could even have been prima facie satisfied that the deed had been forged or fabricated or was fraudulent without even examining the apparent executant Bela Rani, who has not even been cited as a witness………”

On noting several precedents the Court finally held:-

“………33. In this case, it appears that criminal proceedings are being taken recourse to as a weapon of harassment against a purchaser. It is reiterated at the cost of repetition that the FIR does not disclose any offence so far as the Appellant is concerned. There is no whisper of how and in what manner, this Appellant is involved in any criminal offence and the charge sheet, the relevant part whereof has been extracted above, is absolutely vague. There can be no doubt that jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. should be used sparingly for the purpose of preventing abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Whether a complaint discloses criminal offence or not depends on the nature of the allegation and whether the essential ingredients of a criminal offence are present or not has to be judged by the High Court. There can be no doubt that a complaint disclosing civil transactions may also have a criminal texture. The High Court has, however, to see whether the dispute of a civil nature has been given colour of criminal offence. In such a situation, the High Court should not hesitate to quash the criminal proceedings as held by this Court in Paramjeet Batra (supra) extracted above.

34. The given set of facts may make out a civil wrong as also a criminal offence. Only because a civil remedy is available may not be a ground to quash criminal proceedings. But as observed above, in this case, no criminal offence has been made out in the FIR read with the Charge-Sheet so far as this Appellant is concerned. The other accused Rajan Kumar has died……….”

21. In the present case, there is no material on record to make out a prima facie case against the petitioners for the offences alleged, which is clearly a family property dispute.

22. CRR 1512 of 2023 is thus allowed.

23. The proceedings in Kalyani FIR No. 363/22 being Charge Sheet No. 400 under Section 341/323/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code, is hereby quashed in respect of the petitioners namely Amit Dey and Saheli Dey.

24. All connected applications, if any, stands disposed of.

25. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.

26. Copy of this judgment be sent to the learned Trial Court for necessary compliance.

27. Urgent certified website copy of this judgment, if applied for, be supplied expeditiously after complying with all, necessary legal formalities.