Srinagar, July 18, KDC: Holding that criminal law cannot be invoked to settle family disputes over inheritance, the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh has quashed an FIR alleging cheating and criminal intimidation against several members of a Ganderbal family, observing that the allegations disclosed a civil dispute over succession to ancestral property that had been given a criminal colour.
Justice Sanjay Dhar passed the judgment while allowing three petitions challenging FIR No. 198 of 2022 registered at Police Station Ganderbal under Sections 420 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.
The FIR had been registered on the directions of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ganderbal, on a complaint filed by a woman settled in the United Kingdom. She claimed to be the daughter and legal heir of late Dr. Agha Wajahat Hussain and alleged that nearly 25 kanals out of 31 kanals of land situated at Busarbugh, Ganderbal, had been illegally transferred by her late father’s brothers, sisters and their children, causing her wrongful loss of property allegedly worth more than Rs 30 crore. She further alleged that some of the accused had occupied influential public positions, including that of Deputy Commissioner, and had used their influence to usurp the property.
According to the complainant, the land had been gifted by her grandmother to her father and his title had earlier been upheld by a civil court, following which the land was mutated in his favour. She alleged that subsequent revenue entries reflected only a fraction of the property in her father’s name and accused the petitioners of fraudulently depriving her of her lawful inheritance.
The petitioners, however, contended that the controversy arose entirely from a long-standing family dispute regarding inheritance. They submitted that while litigation over the property had remained pending, the parties had eventually arrived at a settlement and the land was thereafter mutated among all legal heirs in accordance with the personal law of inheritance. They argued that the complainant’s father had never questioned those mutations during his lifetime and that the present criminal proceedings were initiated only after his death to pressurise the family in what was essentially a civil dispute.
Examining the complaint and the record, Justice Dhar held that the allegations centred on rival claims to ancestral property and the validity of inheritance rights. The Court observed that the complainant herself asserted title through civil proceedings and revenue records, while the petitioners disputed those claims by relying on inheritance and subsequent settlements, demonstrating that the controversy was fundamentally civil in nature.
The Court held that the mere allegation that the accused had fraudulently deprived the complainant of her share did not, by itself, constitute the offence of cheating. Justice Dhar observed that the complaint did not disclose any allegation that the accused had dishonestly induced the complainant to deliver property or to act in a manner resulting in wrongful loss, an essential ingredient of the offence under Section 420 IPC.
The court further noted that the allegations of criminal intimidation were equally unsustainable as the complaint contained only vague assertions that the accused had threatened to transfer the remaining property without specifying the nature of the threats or the circumstances in which they were allegedly made.
Relying on settled Supreme Court principles governing the exercise of inherent jurisdiction to prevent abuse of the criminal process, the High Court observed that permitting investigation to continue in such circumstances would amount to allowing criminal proceedings to be used as a means of resolving a private civil dispute over inheritance.
Holding that the allegations, even if accepted at face value, failed to disclose the commission of cognisable offences under Sections 420 or 506 IPC and that the dispute was required to be adjudicated before the competent civil forum, the High Court quashed the FIR and all consequential proceedings arising out of it.
The petitioners were represented by Advocate Hakim Suhail Ishtiaq and Advocate Hasnain Khawja, while the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir was represented by Waseem Gull, Advocate. (KDC)
