JUDGMENT : A.J. Shastri, J. 1. By way of the aforesaid petition, the petitioners are seeking relief to quash and set aside the complaint being Inquiry Case No. 39 of 2009 registered with Vadodara Rural Police Station, Vadodara Taluka by invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is the case of the petitioners that the respondent No. 2-original complainant is the daughter of deceased Shanabhai Trikambhai Parmar, who expired on 16.05.1994. The said deceased Shanabhai was having the agricultural land in the sim of village namely Hinglot being ancestral property situated in Block No. 89 and Survey No. 38. In the said parcel of land, the original complainant- respondent No. 2 is having share, being the daughter of the deceased Shanabhai. It is the case of the complainant that the respondent No. 2 - original complainant got married 30 years before and she is living separately with her husband at Village Jasapura and prior to the complaint for about 5 days, when she had gone to the revenue office to pay revenue for the land, the land revenue officer, Talati-cum-Mantri informed that qua the land bearing Block No. 89, the name of the petitioner No. 1 has entered in the revenue record, on the basis of the Will and she was given the copy of that Will. The respondent No. 2 by pleading ignorance about it, has filed the complaint in question by asserting that her signature is forged and someone has signed behind her back. The criminal case came to be filed by the respondent No. 2 for the offence under Sections 465, 467, 468, 471, 120B and 420 IPC before the Vadodara Rural Police Station and the same was registered as inquiry Case No. 39 of 2009. 2. Pursuant to the said complaint having been filed, the petitioners approached this Court by way of the present petition for seeking quashment of the complaint by contending that it is purely a dispute of civil nature, which is tried to be given an instance of criminal offence and thereby respondent No. 2 has abused the process of law. 2. Pursuant to the said complaint having been filed, the petitioners approached this Court by way of the present petition for seeking quashment of the complaint by contending that it is purely a dispute of civil nature, which is tried to be given an instance of criminal offence and thereby respondent No. 2 has abused the process of law. This Court on the stand taken by the respondent No. 2 was pleased to entertain this petition in the month of March, 2009 and by recording the stand of the petitioners issue notice on 20.03.2009 making it returnable on 21.04.2009 and in the meantime, the proceedings pursuant the impugned order and F.I.R. is ordered to be remain stayed. The matter thereafter time to time adjourned and it appears that in the month of April, 2009, this Court had, on 21.04.2009 passed the following order. "Heard learned advocate for the parties. Respondent No. 2 will approach the learned Principal Civil Judge, Baroda in connection with Probate Application No. 180 of 1995 and submit an application for sending the alleged Will which is produced before this Court to the hand-writing expert's opinion for the genuineness of the thumb impression made by the deceased, namely Shanabhai Trikambhai Parmar on the original Will. The original Will is not lying with the Court, but with the petitioner who will produce the same before the Civil Court. If such an application is moved by the applicant, then the Civil Court will immediately pass an order sending the said Will to the hand-writing expert for deciding the above referred process and the petitioner will not take objection for the same. It is submitted by learned advocate Mr. Majmudar as well as Mr. Dave, learned advocate that both of them will move before the Civil Court with appropriate application for taking up the matter on Board. S.O. to 20.06.2009. Interim relief granted earlier to continue till then. Direct service is permitted." 3. Thereafter, the matter came on consideration on 05.03.2010, wherein after perusal the material on record, this Court was pleased to admit the matter and interim relief was granted till final disposal of the case. 4. It is this background of the fact that now the present petition has come up for final hearing, and the learned Advocate Mr. Thereafter, the matter came on consideration on 05.03.2010, wherein after perusal the material on record, this Court was pleased to admit the matter and interim relief was granted till final disposal of the case. 4. It is this background of the fact that now the present petition has come up for final hearing, and the learned Advocate Mr. A.R. Majmudar, appearing on behalf of the petitioners has mainly contended that the process of filing First Information Report against the petitioners is nothing but a clear example of abuse of the process of law and it was contended that such an attempt may not be allowed, to be encouraged and thereby requested to quash the complaint. It was pointed out by the counsel for the petitioners that grievance which has been voiced out by respondent No. 2 that a forged Will is got up by the petitioners but in fact the counsel for the petitioners has drawn the attention of the Court that the Will came to be executed on 23.10.1992 during the life time of the deceased, father of the respondent No. 2 and it appears that the Will is signed by the testator, and the witnesses as well. Pursuant to which, the counsel for the petitioners has drawn the attention of the revenue record has also came to be mutated pursuant to the execution of the Will, wherein the names of the petitioners are already mutated and it has been stated before the Court that the said mutation has taken place after following the entire procedure as contemplated under Section 135(D) of the Bombay Land Revenue Code. The counsel for the petitioners has drawn the attention at page-16 that while mutating the names, the revenue authorities have recorded the statements of all the three legal heirs of the deceased Shanabhai and specific attention is drawn that respondent No. 2 herself is signatory to the said reply which was given way back in February, 2009. 5. The counsel for the petitioners has further drawn the attention of this Court that even the petitioner No. 1 has filed a probate application in the court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) Vadodara being Probate Application No. 180 of 1995, which was filed under Section 222 of the Indian Succession Act. 5. The counsel for the petitioners has further drawn the attention of this Court that even the petitioner No. 1 has filed a probate application in the court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) Vadodara being Probate Application No. 180 of 1995, which was filed under Section 222 of the Indian Succession Act. The said probate application is filed on 10.10.1995 and process of this probate application is also served upon respondent No. 2 and other legal heirs of deceased- Shanabhai, in fact to this probate application pursuant to the process having been served except seeking adjournments, no other steps are taken, neither reply is filed by the respondent No. 2 nor participated in the said proceedings, though served, wherein the respondent No. 2 is opponent No. 2 in that probate application which is pending since 1995. Therefore, by drawing the attention to that application, it has been pointed out by the counsel for the petitioners that essentially the grievance which is trying to be raised, is purely of a civil nature and contended that even if there is any grievance either in the step of divestating the property, in which her share is entangled or any grievance pertaining to execution of Will, an appropriate remedy is to file civil proceedings and therefore, though having knowledge about the execution of Will, though having reply given under Section 135(D) of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, a long lapse of time to file criminal complaint in the year 2009, is nothing but a clear example of abuse of process of law. Therefore, counsel for the petitioners has requested the Court to curb this practice of misusing the criminal machinery to ventilate the grievance for some surprising reasons. The respondent No. 2 set silent over the period of time. Therefore, counsel for the petitioners has requested the Court to curb this practice of misusing the criminal machinery to ventilate the grievance for some surprising reasons. The respondent No. 2 set silent over the period of time. The counsel for the petitioners has further contended that there is a circular issued by the Chief Police Officer and Commissionerate of Government of Gujarat that whenever such kind of civil disputes are entangled inter-se in the property matters as far as possible in those disputes with respect to immovable property not to mis-utilize the powers and all Police Officers are directed by vide Circular dated 23.07.2003 not to allow any misuse of cause related to immovable property and to deposit as far as possible and therefore, by drawing attention of this Court, the counsel for the petitioners has requested to this Court not to entertain the attempt made by the respondent No. 2. It has also been pointed out that the petitioners are also agriculturists and essentially the agricultural property is divested to them, in which since long they are in physical possession of the land in question and therefore, the attempt of the respondent No. 2 may not be allowed to be encouraged. The counsel for the petitioners has further contended that the Will in question is executed on 23.10.1992 and pursuant to that execution which according to the counsel is validly executed, the petitioners are in possession and occupation of the land in question and therefore, filing of the complaint at belated stage is nothing but serious conduct of the respondent No. 2, to be viewed seriously and she may not be allowed to be encouraged any further. 6. The counsel for the petitioners has relied on one judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India in the case of Sardool Singh and another v. Smt. Nasib Kaur reported in 1987 SCC (Criminal) 672, wherein also almost similar issue has arisen pertaining to questioning of validity of Will. After referring to this judgment, the counsel for the petitioners has requested the Court to discourage the attempt of abusing the process of law and therefore, it is in the background of these facts, the prayer is made to grant relief as prayed for in the petition. 7. As against this, learned advocate appearing for the respondent No. 2 Mr. After referring to this judgment, the counsel for the petitioners has requested the Court to discourage the attempt of abusing the process of law and therefore, it is in the background of these facts, the prayer is made to grant relief as prayed for in the petition. 7. As against this, learned advocate appearing for the respondent No. 2 Mr. Jigar Patel has contended that there is wrongful diversion of property under the grab of execution of Will and power of attorney and the petitioners have attempted to dupe the respondent No. 2 and cheating is executed. The counsel for the respondent No. 2 has contended that respondent No. 2 is not residing in the locality where the land in question is situated and since she is married woman and residing since long quite away from the place of the land in question, a design is adopted by the petitioners to dupe her and tried to see that her legitimate claim being the legal heirs of deceased Shanabhai be jeopardized and therefore, since the FIR is at the initial stage, the counsel for the respondent No. 2 has requested the Court by contending that no interception be made at this stage of proceedings. Since only First Information Report is lodged. It is also contended that there is systematic fraud committed against her and thereby prejudice is caused to her by committing offence by the petitioners to her legitimate right, it was brought to the notice of the Court that Banakhat which has been alleged to have been taken place is also undated or on the signature column though on the front side date is mentioned, it was also pointed out that in respect of another portion of land, the power of attorney cause to be executed therefore counsel for the respondent No. 2 suggested that systematic design is adopted somehow dupe and furnish legal heir in the land in question of respondent No. 2. By making such submission, the counsel for the respondent No. 2 has drawn the attention of this Court on document in the form of affidavit dated 12.08.1996, in which a clear assertion is made by the three legal heirs of the deceased- father that they had not executed any Will and this is nothing to a share concoction on the part of the petitioners to thwart her legitimate right in the property and by asserting this ultimately, it has been requested not to entertain this petition by invoking extra jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. No other submissions have been canvassed and ultimately requested to pass suitable order on the basis of the material available on record. 8. At this stage, the facts deserved to be taken into consideration is that when a pointed question was asked by the Court during the course of hearing about the delay which has taken place in filing the complaint, the counsel for the respondent No. 2 unable to offer any explanation whatsoever in nature and just pleaded ignorance. Another question was put, if it is so seriously to be viewed than despite the fact, this Court seized with the matter since 2009, why no affidavit is filed so far to controvert the allegations made and the stand taken by the petitioners to this also, there was no answer available with the respondent No. 2. It was also further informed that what happened to the handwriting expert opinion, which ought to have been undergone pursuant to the order dated 21.04.2009 to this also except ignorance, no explanation was available to be offered to the Court and therefore, under this set of circumstance both the sides have requested to deal with the issue finally. 9. Having heard learned advocates representing the respective sides and having gone through the material available on record, it prima-facie appears that there is a gross misuse of criminal machinery at the behest of the respondent No. 2 which deserves to be discouraged. A bare reading of the complaint and its averments reflects that no offence prima-facie even made out and reflected. A bare reading of the complaint and its averments reflects that no offence prima-facie even made out and reflected. From the complaint, few facts are emerging that father of the respondent No. 2 namely Shanabhai died on 16.05.1994 and having gone through further in the complaint which has been filed even respondent No. 2 is aware about the fact of execution of Will of the father and by making the smart averment in the complaint, it appears that an attempt is made to ventilate the grievance or the dispute by misusing the criminal machinery by lodging complaint in the year 2009. From the record, it appears that the Will in question is executed in writing, in which also there are attesting witnesses, who put their signature beside the thumb impression of the deceased Shanabhai and the Will is executed in the year 1992, whereas the deceased Shanabhai had died in the year 1994 and therefore, it merges from the record that till the deceased was alive, no dispute was coming out from either of the legal heirs of the deceased during lifetime. It is also found out from the record of the case that a probate application No. 81 of 1995 is also pending in the concerned court namely before the Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Vadodara, wherein also no steps have been initiated by the respondent No. 2 and more surprising fact which is emerge, is that even after and during the process, the validity of the Will has not been challenged in any forum by the respondent No. 2. The respondent No. 2 is not in possession of the land in question and even if any legal right is entangled in such an ancestral land to assert the right, respondent No. 2 could have initiated appropriate steps in an appropriate forum but sofar nothing has taken place except filing a complaint to apply pressurizing tactics. It is emerging from the record that even mutation of the land revenue record reflects the name of the petitioner No. 1, and for such mutation also no steps have been taken under the Bombay Land Revenue Code by the respondent No. 2 and such mutation took place after recording the statement of all the legal heirs of deceased. It is emerging from the record that even mutation of the land revenue record reflects the name of the petitioner No. 1, and for such mutation also no steps have been taken under the Bombay Land Revenue Code by the respondent No. 2 and such mutation took place after recording the statement of all the legal heirs of deceased. No steps are reflected from the record of the case, which compels the Court to take view that filing complaint is nothing but an abuse of process of law. In addition to this, the Court finds that on 21.04.2009, this Court has passed an order as referred above, in which the Will was required to refer to the hand-writing expert for ascertaining genuineness of the thumb impression made by the deceased and to this order, which had passed in April, 2009 and though there is a specific knowledge of respondent No. 2 about the execution of the Will and surprisingly after this period also no steps have been taken in any manner to challenge the stand of the petitioners and the question of validity of Will. It has been found that referring to above, there is a specific ignorance about the delay which has been occasioned in filing the complaint, neither the respondent No. 2 has filed any affidavit explaining such delay nor has offered any explanation even at the time of hearing of this matter. On the contrary there is a candid admission on the part of the counsel for the respondent No. 2 that there appears to be no explanation. On the record of the case one document in the form of expert opinion is reflected but even the said hand-writing expert opinion was not certain as no signature/thumb impression of deceased Shanabhai was bought to his notice and therefore, even the expert opinion is or not available to respondent No. 2 therefore, here is the case wherein record indicates that there are no steps whatsoever nature taken by the respondent No. 2 either to challenge the validity of Will even from the date of her knowledge or even claiming legal right of ancestral property by filing proceedings in an appropriate forum and further material facts which is emerging is that though respondent N.2 is specifically a party in the Probate Application since 1995. It appears that respondent No. 2 may be inserted only to harass the petitioners rather to claim her so called legitimate right in property and hence this conduct of the respondent No. 2 speaks volume about it and therefore, from over all circumstances of this nature, it appears to the Court that a filing of the complaint is nothing but a clear example of abuse of the process of law. The judgment which has been brought to the notice of this Court delivered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India referred to above, in which also almost similar situation erupted and the background of that fact, Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India was of the view that since the validity of the Will is subject matter which challenge is under the criminal prosecution of allegation of the Will being forged one can not be and here exactly in this situation the probate application is very much pending since 1995 in a competent forum, in which respondent No. 2 is a party to the said proceedings and the same is pending since 1995. Here respondent No. 2 having a specific knowledge about the same, is on one side not attending the probate proceedings and on the other hand has attempted to put criminal machinery into motion to apply pressure tactics upon the petitioners by filing complaint in the year 2009. This conduct on the part of the respondent No. 2 is to be viewed seriously. In a bare perusal of the facts, which are identical worth to be taken into consideration. From the judgment referred above in the case of Sardool Singh (supra) para-2 reads as under: "2. A Civil suit between the parties is pending wherein the contention of the respondent is that no Will was executed whereas the contention of the appellants is that a Will has been executed by the testator. A case for grant of probate is also pending in the court of learned District Judge, Rampur. The Civil Court is therefore seized of the question as regards the validity of the Will. The matter is sub judice in the aforesaid two cases in civil courts. At this juncture the respondent cannot therefore be permitted to institute a criminal prosecution on the allegation that the Will is a forged one. The Civil Court is therefore seized of the question as regards the validity of the Will. The matter is sub judice in the aforesaid two cases in civil courts. At this juncture the respondent cannot therefore be permitted to institute a criminal prosecution on the allegation that the Will is a forged one. That question will have to be decided by the civil court after recording the evidence and hearing the parties in accordance with law. It would not be proper to permit the respondent to prosecute the appellants on this allegation when the validity of the Will is being tested before a civil court. We, therefore, allow the appeal, set aside the order of the High Court, and quash the criminal proceedings pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Chandigarh in the case entitled Smt. Nasib Kaur v. Sardool Singh. This will not come in the way of instituting appropriate proceedings in future in case the civil court comes to the conclusion that the Will is a forged one. We of course refrain from exercising any opinion as regards genuineness or otherwise of the Will in question as there is no occasion to do so and the question is wide open before the lower courts." 10. In the background of the aforesaid situation, when this Court is called upon to exercise extraordinary inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. the law laid down by the series of decisions on exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. are worth to be taken note of. In a decision of Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India reported in (2015) 11 SCC 519, it has been propounded that if there is a concealment of material fact on the part of the complainant or if it has attempted to mislead the Court or the authorities as reflecting, then in such circumstances powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. not to be exercised. A bare look of the complaint clearly suggests that there is systematic suppression of material fact on the part of the respondent No. 2 not to disclose the pending proceedings, where the Will in question is the subject matter, the averments made in the complaint are not referring a word about pending of a probate application No. 180 of 1995, wherein respondent No. 2 is very much a party to the same. Therefore since an attempt is made by the respondent No. 2 not to disclose the correct fact before this Court. The said conduct deserves to be taken in mind while exercising jurisdiction in an another decision delivered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India, wherein it has been specifically held that the disputed question of facts if emerging from the proceedings, the same may not be allowed to be a subject matter or exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and the Court is not to conduct a mini trial or roving inquiry sitting in a jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. For this proposition, decisions reported in (2015) 11 SCC 776 and (2000) 1 SCC 103 deserves to taken into aid. Herein the background of this proposition in the case on hand, there appears to be a pending probate application, in which respondent No. 2 is very much a party. From the record, it is also emerging that the mutation has already taken place long back and that mutation has also taken place only after following lawful process and in compliance of Section 135(D)of the Bombay Land Revenue Code wherein the statements are recorded of all legal heirs of the deceased and same are very much part of record of this proceedings. To this, respondent No. 2 is that disputing without any concrete material and there are the disputed questions of fact, whether signature is made or not, whether statements have been recorded or not, are not to be gone into, or examined in exercise of power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. 11. As stated above, that the point in controversy the question of validity of Will which at behest can be gone into by the Civil Court, since as per say of the respondent No. 2, her right in property was tried to be jeopardized in the ancestral land, no such steps have so far been initiated in any form, which is not disputed by the counsel for the respondent No. 2 and in the background of this fact, it appears to this Court that simply by making bald assertion in the complaint, the allegations ipso facto do not constitute a criminal offence. It appears that there is a complete missing lack of course at the stage of FIR, no details scrutiny is to be made but looking to the background of the peculiar set of circumstances stated here-in-above, it appears that it is an attempt of misusing the criminal machinery to ventilate the grievance, which is essentially to be taken care of by detail adjudication in the civil proceedings. From the above, examination of material on record, and the complaint taken into consideration as its form only one conclusion possibly to be arrived at this that the legal rights over the ancestral properties are alleged to have been jeopardize at the instance of the petitioners and therefore, after such a long period without explaining any detail, without disclosing true and correct facts and without co-operating the probate proceedings, the respondent No. 2 has tried to utilize the criminal complaint as a labour to pressurize the petitioners and other appears to be in view of the chronology of the event be taken as stated here-in-above and therefore, such a dispute essentially of a civil nature cannot be allowed to be agitated or allowed to be scored by way of utilizing the complaint as a sworn against the petitioners. A large number of case of this nature have been noticed by the State Government as well and realising the effect of involving Police Officers taking part in such kind of internal dispute related to immovable properties. The Government has to ascertain that every Police Officer should take care of a situation and not entangled themselves beyond a particular point as reflected from Circular No. 08 dated 30.07.2009. Here a peculiar case, in which also the hands of the Police Officer are not to be troubled to take course of action in response to the complaint in question related to the immovable property, it is internal dispute amongst legal heirs of deceased Shanabhai as against the son of a close friend by the deceased Shanabhai, who are throughout taken care of the deceased and possibly realizing this fact, even to legal heirs have not attempted to lodge the complaint as it has been made by the respondent No. 2 and therefore, this is a fit case, in which the effect of Circular referred to above is to be maintained. 12. 12. Recently, this kind of situation wherein the grievance is essentially of a civil nature, whether criminal machinery is allowed to be utilized or not, the question came up for consideration before Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Pooja Ravinder Devidasani v. State of Maharashtra and others reported in(2014) 16 SCC in Paragraph-23 as well as Paragraph-30, Hon'ble the Supreme Court has substantially propounded to put criminal in motion is not matter of course and to settle scores between the parties, who are more than in nature of civil dispute. The parties cannot be permitted to criminal law into motion and the Courts cannot be a mere spectator to it. Of course in the said decision of Hon'ble the Supreme Court, the essential issue was related to power of Magistrate, how to be exercised while issuing summons under Section 204 but taking note of exercise of criminal law to settle score of a view which is essentially to be reflected the civil issue. Hon'ble the Supreme Court was constraint to make such observation, which are here-in-after referred to in Paragraph 23 and 30, which reads as under : "23. In Gunmala Sales Private Ltd. (supra) on which learned counsel for the respondents has heavily relied, this Court at Para 33(c) held : "In the facts of a given case, on an overall reading of the complaint, the High Court may, despite the presence of the basic averment, quash the complaint because of the absence of more particulars about role of the Director in the complaint. It may do so having come across some unimpeachable, uncontrovertible evidence which is beyond suspicion or doubt or totally acceptable circumstances which may clearly indicate that the Director could not have been concerned with the issuance of cheques and asking him to stand the trial would be abuse of the process of the court. Despite the presence of basic averment, it may come to a conclusion that no case is made out against the Director. Take for instance a case of a Director suffering from a terminal illness who was bedridden at the relevant time or a Director who had resigned long before issuance of cheques. In such cases, if the High Court is convinced that prosecuting such a Director is merely an arm-twisting tactics, the High Court may quash the proceedings. Take for instance a case of a Director suffering from a terminal illness who was bedridden at the relevant time or a Director who had resigned long before issuance of cheques. In such cases, if the High Court is convinced that prosecuting such a Director is merely an arm-twisting tactics, the High Court may quash the proceedings. It bears repetition to state that to establish such case unimpeachable, uncontrovertible evidence which is beyond suspicion or doubt or some totally acceptable circumstances will have to be brought to the notice of the High Court. Such cases may be few and far between but the possibility of such a case being there cannot be ruled out". 30. Putting the criminal law into motion is not a matter of course. To settle the scores between the parties which are more in the nature of a civil dispute, the parties cannot be permitted to put the criminal law into motion and Courts cannot be a mere spectator to it. Before a Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence under Section 138/141 of the N.I. Act, making a person vicariously liable has to ensure strict compliance of the statutory requirements. The Superior Courts should maintain purity in the administration of Justice and should not allow abuse of the process of the Court. The High Court ought to have quashed the complaint against the appellant which is nothing but a pure abuse of process of law." 13. Having gone through the aforesaid decision and taking into consideration of the background of this fact, this Court is of the opinion that the complaint in question is not only grossly belated not only based upon concealment upon material fact, but also serious attempt to settle by applying pressurizing tactics upon the petitioners with the aid and assistance of criminal law under the guise of the impugned complaint and therefore, this attempt is nothing but a clear example of abuse of process of law and therefore, considering over all view of the matter, the complaint in question deserves to be quashed. 14. 14. While allowing this petition, this Court is not expressing any opinion related to any of this civil rights of respondent No. 2, if any surviving upon respondent No. 2 but in the background of this fact, the Court is only confined to the criminal complaint being Inquiry Case No. 39 of 2009 registered with the Vadodara Rural Police Station Vadodara Taluka and accordingly, the said inquiry case is hereby quashed. 15. With the above observation, this petition is allowed and the complaint being Inquiry Case No. 39 of 2009 registered with the Vadodara Rural Police Station Vadodara Taluka is ordered to be quashed.

Rameshbhai Parshottambhai Patel v. State of Gujarat