JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioners who are accused Nos.1 and 2 in Cr.No.106/2016 of Tavarekere Police Station, have filed this petition for quashing of the FIR and all further proceedings. 2. The second respondent herein has filed FIR stating that her grand-father, on 07/04/2004, alleged to have executed a gift deed. This was not within the knowledge of the complainant. But during the pendency of the civil proceedings, she came to know about the same and it is stated that at that particular point of time, this girl i.e., the complainant (respondent No.2) was studying in II PUC and she was writing the examination. She stated that she had not gone to the Sub-Registrar’s office and put her signature. Therefore, she contends that her grand-father/Hanumanthappa was suffering from serious illness as on the date of the said gift deed and he has not executed any gift deed and in fact, accused Nos.1 and 2 who are the beneficiaries of the gift deed have concocted and forged the signature of the said Hanumanthappa and created such documents. As such, a criminal complaint came to be lodged and the same was registered on 15/3/2016 by the jurisdictional police for the offences punishable under Sections 415, 465, 468, 420 read with Section 34 of the IPC. The said registration of the FIR is called in question before this court. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners strenuously contends before the court that the document is of the year 2004 and the same is a public document registered before the Sub-Registrar Office, which bears the signature of the second respondent and that when the second respondent has admitted her signature, she only stated in the complaint that she did not go to the Sub-Registrar’s office and put her signature. But her signature is not denied in the document. Further, the said document is a registered document. When it is a public document, it is well within the knowledge of the petitioner, but the same has not been challenged nearly for a period fourteen years. But her signature is not denied in the document. Further, the said document is a registered document. When it is a public document, it is well within the knowledge of the petitioner, but the same has not been challenged nearly for a period fourteen years. He also contends that one Smt. Jayamma and four others including accused No.1 who is arrayed as plaintiff No.5 have filed a suit in O.S.No.6880/2011 for various reliefs i.e., for partition and separate possession of 1/7th share each and for declaration that the gift deed dated 22/12/2010 is not binding on the plaintiffs and directing the defendants to render accounts for the rent and profits received from the tenants and for other reliefs. The suit was filed on 21/09/2011. It is contended that the present complainant Asha is cited as third defendant in the said suit and she filed common written statement with other defendants and have not taken up any contention in the written statement with regard to the concoction or forgery of the said gift deed. It is also contended that they also filed counter claim petition on 06/08/2012. It is contended that in the said counter claim, there is absolutely no allegation of any forgery or any concoction of gift deed. The allegations are not so attractive in the said case with reference to the gift deed executed by the father of accused No.1. But abruptly after the suit being set down for evidence and the gift deed being marked by the court, the complaint came to be lodged for the purpose of harassing the petitioner and if possible to coerce the petitioners to come down for settlement etc. Therefore, learned counsel contends that it is an after thought of the second respondent to convert a civil dispute into a criminal case. Hence, he has filed FIR, which clearly amounts to abuse of process of law. He also contends that private vengeance of the parties is glaring on the face of the record, as the civil matter is pending before the civil court and issues have been framed, the burden is cast upon the fifth plaintiff and the complainant in the said case to establish their respective claims. Instead of establishing their case, fifth plaintiff and complainant have filed a false complaint. Therefore, such FIR is liable to be quashed. 4. Instead of establishing their case, fifth plaintiff and complainant have filed a false complaint. Therefore, such FIR is liable to be quashed. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the second respondent strenuously contends before this court that though the gift deed was stated to be executed as pleaded in the plaint allegations, the said document was not produced before the court. Recently when the said document was produced before the court, the plaintiff came to know about the concoction and forgery of the said document. Therefore, she lodged a complaint before the police. Therefore, there is no hatred or ill-will against the petitioners and there is a stringent criminal liability which is stated to be in the FIR. Therefore, it is stated that the FIR clearly attracts the provision of penal laws, thus, normally the court should not quash such proceedings. In this context, the petitioners have relied upon various decisions, they are, Teeja Devi alias Triza Devi vs. State of Rajasthan & others [ (2014) 15 SCC 221 ]; S.M.Datta vs. State of Gujarat & another [ AIR 2001 SC 3253 ] and Taramani Parakh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & others [2015 Crl. L.J. 2031] I do not find that there is any reason or necessary to cite those decisions. In all these cases, the Apex Court has observed that if the allegations made in the complaint are sufficient to attract the provisions of the penal laws, then that has to be investigated by the police, and at that threshold the FIR cannot be quashed. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon a decision of the Apex Court in Inder Mohan Goswami & another vs. State of Uttaranchal & others [ AIR 2008 SC 251 ]. In that case, the Apex Court has observed pendency of civil case of the parties and institution of criminal cases against the vendor in order to harass the opposite party with a private vendetta or with an ulterior motive to pressurize the accused, the court can quash such FIR itself in order to safeguard the interest of the parties. 6. Learned counsel for the second respondent also stated that he has taken up the contention that the document has been concocted in the counter claim filed before the civil court in O.S.No.6880/2011. 7. 6. Learned counsel for the second respondent also stated that he has taken up the contention that the document has been concocted in the counter claim filed before the civil court in O.S.No.6880/2011. 7. In view of the aforesaid rival contentions, under what circumstances, the court can quash the proceedings is to be borne in mind in the light of a land mark decision reported in the case of State of Haryana & others vs. Bhajanlal & others [1992 supp (1) SCC 335], wherein it is observed that some of the categories of cases by way of illustration, where extraordinary power under Article 226 under the Constitution of India or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., can be exercised by the High Court, either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. The following are the important guidelines issued by the said court are as under (only relevant guidelines are extracted): (a) where the allegations made in the first information report or 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 a case against the accused; (c) where the un-controverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused; (e) where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused; (g) where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. In this particular case, it is vehemently submitted by the counsel for petitioners that, the criminal case is manifestly attended with mala fides and the case is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused, with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge, the court can exercise such power. 8. In this particular case, it is vehemently submitted by the counsel for petitioners that, the criminal case is manifestly attended with mala fides and the case is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused, with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge, the court can exercise such power. 8. In view of the above said decisions, it is clear that, ultimately it is the sound discretion of the court as to, under what circumstances the court can take a decision, to hold that the FIR has been filed by a party only with an intention to convert a civil litigation into criminal case or in order to take vengeance against the other party. In this back ground, what the court has to consider is the admitted facts between the parties. If admitted facts between the parties are considered, and on the basis of such material if the court is of the opinion that the continuation of the criminal case is abuse of the process of court or law, this court can quash the FIR and all further proceedings. 9. Now, I would come back to the facts of the case. In the complaint, it is categorically stated that only after the said document (gift deed) being produced before the civil court the complainant came to know about the concoction and forging of the said gift deed, but she states that she never denied her signature in the gift deed executed by Hanumanthappa in favour of the first accused. But she stated that she had not gone to the Sub-Registrar’s Office to put her signature. 10. Further, added to that, the suit was filed in O.S.No.6880/2011, as early in the year 2011 itself. In the plaint, it is categorically stated about the execution of the gift deed by Hanumanthappa, the father of first accused in her favour as on 07/04/2004 itself. Therefore, it is well within the knowledge of the complainant about the execution of the said gift deed even as on the date of the service of the plaint on her. In-spite of that, in the written statement, absolutely there is no allegation or pleading whatsoever with regard to the concoction or forgery of the said document, in the written statement. In-spite of that, in the written statement, absolutely there is no allegation or pleading whatsoever with regard to the concoction or forgery of the said document, in the written statement. At paragraph No.4 of the written statement, admittedly it is stated that “there is a partition already effected in the family by way of gift, sale of portions of the family properties in favour of the plaintiffs. The said fact is well within the knowledge of the plaintiff. Inspite of which, the plaintiffs have deliberately suppressed the said fact and they have sought for partition in the remaining properties, which absolutely belongs to defendant No.1”. The said pleading of the complainant clearly indicative that the defendant No.3 i.e., respondent No.2 herein has admitted that the gift deed executed by Hanumanthappa, but the allegation is that as the plaintiffs have taken share in the property, the plaintiffs are debarred from claiming share in the property which belonged to respondent No.2. There is absolutely no allegation with regard to concoction or creation of gift deed as alleged in the written statement, in fact the gift deed is virtually accepted, to non-suit the plaintiffs. 11. Further added to that, in the counter claim, of course, in one sentence, it is stated that the said gift deed is concocted. But there is no explanation whether anybody has forged that document or particularly, plaintiff No.1 has forged the said document. There is no such allegation in the counter claim. Respondent No.2 cannot blow hot and cold. In the written statement, she admits that other than the properties gifted and sold other properties exclusively belonged to respondent No.2 and she specifically claims that plaintiffs cannot claim partition in the properties of the defendant. On the other hand, she has not claimed any partition in the properties, though it is stated that it is the ancestral property of Hanumanthappa, who is said to have executed the gift deed in favour of respondent. Therefore, looking to the above said facts and circumstances, it is quite clear that the execution of the gift deed was admitted at paragraph No.4 of the earlier written statement. But afterwards, in the counter claim, it is stated that it is concocted document. I am of the opinion that only in order to take vengeance against the petitioner an FIR has been lodged for the purpose of harassing the petitioners herein. 12. But afterwards, in the counter claim, it is stated that it is concocted document. I am of the opinion that only in order to take vengeance against the petitioner an FIR has been lodged for the purpose of harassing the petitioners herein. 12. When the parties are already before the civil court, the burden is cast upon the defendants to prove that the document is concocted. If defendant No.3/respondent No.2 herein is able to establish that it is a concocted or forged document, then it is open to respondent No.2 to lodge a criminal complaint. Under the above facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that it is a fit case where FIR cannot be continued and the proceedings deserves to be quashed. 13. In view of the aforesaid reasons, the petition deserves to be allowed. Hence, the following order: Petition is allowed. The FIR registered in Cr.No.106/2016 and all further proceedings taken in pursuance of the same are hereby quashed. In view of the disposal of the petition, I.A.No.1/17 does not survive for consideration and the same is dismissed.