The Chhattisgarh High Court has reaffirmed that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot be invoked to quash criminal proceedings when the core allegations hinge on disputed questions of fact, particularly in cases involving alleged forgery and fraudulent property transactions. The ruling underscores the principle that such disputes must be resolved through evidentiary trial, not constitutional remedy.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The dispute centers on a piece of land bearing khasra No. 1/1, measuring 518 sq.ft., located in Ward No. 27, Village Lalpur, Bagbahra, District Mahasamund. The complainant, Ghanshyam Soni, claims this land as ancestral property inherited from his father, Ramdas Soni, whose name was recorded in municipal records. After his father’s death, the land was recorded in the name of his mother. Upon her death, the complainant sought to mutate the land in his name, but his application was rejected because the land had already been recorded in the name of the petitioner, Hemlal Sonwani, based on a sale agreement dated 15.04.2007.
Key Facts
- The complainant alleges the sale agreement was forged and fabricated by the petitioner in collusion with a Notary.
- The petitioner claims the land was lawfully purchased for Rs. 70,001/- on 15.04.2007, with Rs. 35,000/- paid as advance and the balance Rs. 35,000/- paid subsequently.
- Possession of the land was handed over to the petitioner, who has been in peaceful possession since.
- The complainant denies ever executing the agreement, denies his or his mother’s thumb impression on it, and claims the payments and terms were added later without notarial attestation.
- The complainant filed a complaint with the Bagbahra Police Station on or before 2024, but no action was taken.
- The complainant then filed Criminal Complaint Case No. 512/2024 under Sections 419, 420, 463, and 467 IPC.
- The Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bagbahra, took cognizance on 09.05.2024 based on the complainant’s preliminary statement.
- Separately, the complainant filed Civil Suit No. 8-A/2023 seeking declaration of title and possession, which was dismissed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bagbahra, on 04.07.2025.
- The complainant has appealed that civil judgment, and the appeal is currently sub judice.
Procedural History
- 15.04.2007: Alleged sale agreement executed between complainant’s mother and petitioner.
- 2023: Civil Suit No. 8-A/2023 filed by complainant.
- 04.07.2025: Civil Suit dismissed by Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bagbahra.
- 2024: Complainant files criminal complaint before Bagbahra Police Station; no FIR registered.
- 09.05.2024: Judicial Magistrate First Class takes cognizance under Sections 419, 420, 463, 467 IPC.
- 13.04.2026: Writ Petition No. 523 of 2025 filed before Chhattisgarh High Court seeking quashment.
The Parties' Positions
Petitioner (Hemlal Sonwani): Asserts lawful purchase, possession, and municipal mutation. Argues the criminal case is an abuse of process to circumvent the adverse civil judgment.
Respondent (Complainant Ghanshyam Soni): Denies execution of agreement, alleges forgery, and claims the petitioner obtained mutation through fraudulent documents.
Relief Sought
The petitioner seeks:
- Quashing of the cognizance order dated 09.05.2024
- Quashing of all proceedings in Complaint Case No. 512/2024
- Discharge from charges under Sections 419, 420, 463, and 467 IPC
The Legal Issue
Can a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution be maintained to quash criminal proceedings under Sections 419, 420, 463, and 467 IPC when the allegations involve disputed questions of fact regarding the authenticity of a sale agreement and title to land, especially when a related civil suit is pending appeal?
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Learned counsel argued that the criminal proceedings are an abuse of process, as the complainant is attempting to convert a civil dispute into a criminal case after losing in civil court. The sale agreement, though unregistered, was executed in 2007, possession transferred, and the civil suit was dismissed on merits on 04.07.2025. The complainant’s denial of the agreement and thumb impression is a factual dispute that must be resolved at trial, not through writ jurisdiction. Reliance was placed on State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal to argue that the proceedings are frivolous and warrant quashment.
For the Respondent
The State and complainant’s counsel contended that an unregistered agreement to sell has no legal sanctity under the Transfer of Property Act. The complainant’s denial of execution, absence of notarial attestation for subsequent payments, and lack of proof of title render the petitioner’s claim suspect. The civil judgment is not final as it is under appeal, and therefore cannot be relied upon to preclude criminal liability. The magistrate’s cognizance was based on prima facie evidence, and interference at this stage would undermine the criminal justice process.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the nature of the allegations and the stage of proceedings. It noted that the complainant’s claim of forgery and fabrication hinges entirely on disputed facts: whether the sale agreement was genuinely executed, whether the thumb impressions are authentic, whether payments were made, and whether possession was lawfully transferred. These are questions of fact that require examination of documents, witness testimony, and expert evidence - none of which have been evaluated at trial.
"It is settled law that the High Court should not exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution when it raises disputed question of facts."
The Court emphasized that the pendency of an appeal against the civil judgment dated 04.07.2025 further complicates the matter. The civil decree is not final and cannot be used as conclusive proof of title or legitimacy of possession. The criminal court’s cognizance was based on a preliminary statement, which is a permissible step under Section 200 CrPC. The High Court cannot substitute its opinion for that of the trial court at this stage.
The Court also observed that allegations under Sections 463 and 467 IPC (forgery and forgery of valuable security) are serious and require full trial. The mere existence of a civil dispute does not bar criminal prosecution, especially where the ingredients of the offences are prima facie made out. The Court declined to interfere, citing K.P. Varghese v. State of Kerala and State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, which caution against premature quashment where factual disputes remain unresolved.
The Verdict
The writ petition was dismissed. The Chhattisgarh High Court held that the criminal proceedings in Complaint Case No. 512/2024 shall continue before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bagbahra. The petitioner is not discharged from the charges under Sections 419, 420, 463, and 467 IPC. The trial court shall proceed to record evidence and determine the authenticity of the sale agreement and the petitioner’s title in accordance with law.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Criminal Proceedings Survive Pending Civil Disputes
- Practitioners must not assume that a pending civil suit or even an adverse civil judgment automatically bars criminal prosecution for forgery or cheating.
- The existence of a civil remedy does not negate the state’s power to prosecute criminal offences arising from the same transaction.
Writ Jurisdiction Cannot Resolve Factual Disputes
- Writ petitions under Article 226 are not a substitute for trial.
- Courts will refuse to quash criminal proceedings where the allegations involve contested facts - even if the petitioner claims the case is frivolous.
- The burden remains on the petitioner to demonstrate that the complaint is manifestly false or legally unsustainable on its face - not merely disputed.
Evidence Must Be Led at Trial
- Allegations of forgery, fabrication, and fraudulent mutation require examination of handwriting, thumb impressions, notarial records, and payment trails.
- These are matters for the trial court to evaluate after hearing witnesses and experts.
- Any attempt to pre-empt trial through writ is likely to fail unless the complaint is legally non-est or mala fide on its face.
