The High Court of Telangana has reaffirmed that criminal proceedings initiated to exert pressure in a purely civil property dispute, without any genuine basis of dishonest intent, constitute an abuse of the process of law. This ruling reinforces the principle that criminal law must not be weaponized to circumvent civil remedies.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The dispute originated from a long-standing civil conflict over land ownership in Rangareddy District, Telangana. The petitioner, Sri Lavanya Reddy, was not a party to the succession proceedings initiated by Sri K. Prem Raj and others before the Tahsildar, Gandipet Mandal. The petitioner had submitted a document dated 14.02.2018 (Proc. No. D/11/12/17) in connection with Survey No. 193, which the complainant, Sri Khadeeer, alleged was forged. However, the document in question did not originate from the Tahsildar’s office, and the petitioner had no legal standing in the succession proceedings.
Procedural History
- 2018: Crime No. 54 of 2018 was registered against the petitioner by Respondent No. 2, based on allegations of forgery and cheating under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, and 120-B of the IPC.
- 2020: The case was transferred from the local police station to the Cyberabad Police Station (EOW) and re-registered as Crime No. 54 of 2025.
- 2019: The High Court dismissed W.P. No. 10799 of 2019 filed by the complainant, holding that civil remedies must be exhausted before approaching civil courts for ownership claims.
- 2019: Writ Appeals (W.A. Nos. 612 and 613 of 2019) filed by the complainant against the 2019 order remain pending before the High Court.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought quashing of the criminal proceedings under Section 561-A of the BNSS, arguing that the case was a clear misuse of criminal law to harass him in an ongoing civil dispute, with no prima facie evidence of dishonest intent at the time of document submission.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the initiation and continuation of criminal proceedings under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, and 120-B of the IPC can be sustained when the underlying dispute is purely civil, the accused is not a party to the relevant proceedings, and no evidence establishes dishonest intent at the time of document submission.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner’s counsel, Sri Katika Ravinder Reddy, argued that the complaint lacked essential ingredients of the alleged offences. He emphasized that the petitioner had no role in the succession proceedings, the document submitted was not issued by the Tahsildar’s office, and there was no proof of fraudulent intent. He relied on Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal to contend that the case fell squarely within the category of frivolous prosecutions warranting quashing to prevent abuse of process.
For the Respondent
The Additional Public Prosecutor for the State did not contest the factual assertions regarding the petitioner’s non-involvement in the succession proceedings. Instead, he sought an adjournment to obtain instructions, implicitly acknowledging the weakness of the prosecution’s case. No counter-affidavit or evidence was filed to rebut the petitioner’s claims of innocence or the absence of criminal intent.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the nature of the dispute and the procedural history with care. It noted that the complainant had already approached the High Court twice seeking relief in civil matters - first through a writ petition dismissed in 2019, and then through pending writ appeals. The criminal complaint, filed in 2018 and re-registered in 2025, was clearly an attempt to bypass the civil court’s directive to resolve ownership claims through appropriate civil remedies.
"The criminal law is not a tool to be used as a sword in civil disputes where the complainant has already been directed to approach the civil court for redressal."
The Court held that for an offence under Section 420 IPC, dishonest intent must exist at the time of making the false representation. Here, the petitioner’s submission of a document in a land record context, without any proven link to the succession proceedings or intent to defraud, could not sustain a criminal charge. The Court further observed that the complainant’s failure to produce any evidence of forgery or fraudulent motive, coupled with the petitioner’s non-party status in the relevant proceedings, rendered the prosecution baseless.
The Court emphasized that allowing such proceedings to continue would violate the principles of natural justice and the constitutional guarantee against arbitrary state action under Article 21. The initiation of criminal proceedings in such circumstances, where civil remedies are available and actively being pursued, amounts to an abuse of the process of law.
The Verdict
The petitioner succeeded. The High Court held that criminal proceedings under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, and 120-B IPC are unsustainable when initiated to coerce parties in civil property disputes without proof of dishonest intent. The Court quashed Crime No. 54 of 2025 against the petitioner and directed that no further proceedings be taken against him in connection with the matter.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Criminal Proceedings Cannot Substitute Civil Remedies
- Practitioners must challenge criminal complaints filed in civil disputes by invoking State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal and demonstrating the absence of criminal intent.
- Courts are increasingly willing to quash cases where complainants have already been directed to civil courts for relief.
- A pending civil suit or writ appeal does not justify criminal prosecution unless independent evidence of fraud exists.
Burden of Proof Lies with the Complainant
- The complainant bears the burden to establish dishonest intent at the time of the alleged act - not after the fact.
- Mere assertion of forgery without documentary or testimonial corroboration is insufficient to sustain a criminal case.
- Courts will not entertain speculative allegations in property disputes where civil remedies are available and active.
Abuse of Process Is a Ground for Quashing
- The doctrine of abuse of process is now firmly established as a standalone ground for quashing under Section 561-A BNSS.
- Lawyers should routinely raise this argument in petitions under Section 561-A when the complaint is a collateral attack on civil proceedings.
- Delay in registration or re-registration of FIRs (as occurred here in 2025) further weakens the prosecution’s case and supports a finding of mala fide intent.
