HC Quashes Criminal Case In Family Property Dispute

Hyderabad: Justice Juvvadi Sridevi of the Telangana High Court ruled that when the allegations fail to meet the threshold for a cognisable offence or are intrinsically bound to a civil dispute, continuing criminal proceedings would constitute an abuse of the process.

The judge quashed criminal proceedings against Lingala Venkatesh Goud and five family members accused of conspiracy, forgery and cheating in connection with a property dispute involving close relatives. The dispute originated from a complaint filed by a woman who alleged that her brother, along with other family members, conspired to usurp a 200-square-yard property in Bahadurpally that legally belonged to her children.

The de facto complainant claimed the accused fabricated an agreement of sale by forging her and her husband’s signatures and used the forged document to obtain an injunction in a civil court. When she confronted them, she alleged, the family members abused and assaulted her, prompting her to file the criminal complaint.

Counsel for the petitioners argued that the case was a civil dispute between family members and did not warrant criminal prosecution. It was emphasised that the property was not in the name of the complainant or her husband, but in the names of their adult children, which made the legality of the sale agreement questionable. The petitioners contended that the FIR and chargesheet lacked specific allegations and failed to disclose the necessary ingredients of the alleged offences under the IPC. The judge found several lapses in the investigation, including the failure to record statements from witnesses to the disputed sale agreement.

The judge noted that out of the nine witnesses listed, four were the complainant and her family members, and the remaining five were either panch or official witnesses — none of whom were direct, independent witnesses to the alleged crimes. The judge also noted that no specific details were provided regarding the alleged abuse or assault and there was no allegation of common intention among all the accused.

The judge observed that the complainant and petitioner, being siblings with a history of family disputes, may have resorted to criminal litigation to settle personal scores.