URMILA DEVI & OTHERSversusBALRAM & ANOTHER

                 [2025] 7 S.C.R. 1956 : 2025 INSC 915

                          Urmila Devi & Others
                                   v.
                           Balram & Another
                    (Criminal Appeal No. 3300 of 2025)
                                 31 July 2025
           [B.V. Nagarathna* and K.V. Viswanathan, JJ.]


                           Issue for Consideration
       Issue arose as regards correctness of the impugned order passed
       by the High Court dismissing the application filed by the appellants
       u/s.482 CrPC to quash the complaint u/ss.419, 420, 467, 468 and
       471 IPC pending before the magistrate.

                                  Headnotes†
       Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.482 – Penal Code, 1860
       – ss.419, 420, 467, 468, 471 – Quashing of criminal complaint –
       Testator on account of the fear of his estate being jeopardized
       by the alcoholic obsessions of his third son, bequeathed
       his properties in favour of the appellants-daughters-in-law
       by executing unregistered Will – After death of testator,
       third son executed a registered sale deed for his share in
       testator’s property in favour of the complainant – Unaware
       of the same, the appellants filed for mutation on the basis of
       will, and favourable mutation order was passed – Appellants
       then filed for permanent injunction against the complainant
       and exparte interim order was passed – Complainant raised
       objections against the mutation order but the same were
       rejected – Subsequently, complainant filed an application
       u/s.156(3) CrPC alleging that one of the testator’s son entered
       into a conspiracy with the appellants and forged a fraudulent
       unregistered Will after the death of the testator to circumvent the
       said sale deed by the third son in favour of the complainant –
       Complaint proceedings initiated – Quashing application by the
       appellants – Dismissed by High Court – Correctness:
       Held: None of the offences alleged against the appellants
       made out – Neither any criminal breach of trust nor cheating

* Author
[2025] 7 S.C.R.                                                          1957

                Urmila Devi & Others v. Balram & Another


     by impersonation found – No cheating and dishonestly inducing
     delivery of property found – Writ large on the face of the record
     that the complaint case has been employed as a circuitous tool to
     abuse the process of law, especially after the complainant failed
     to pursue the remedies available to it – Chronology of events
     indicates that the criminal proceedings were instituted only after
     approximately seven years of the mutation order, four years after
     the ex-parte ad-interim order and three years after the rejection
     of the objections to the Mutation Order – Instant case seeks to
     disguise a civil dispute as criminal – Complaint case against
     the appellants has been pending for over two decades and its
     continuation would not serve any purpose – Impugned order of the
     High Court set-aside – Proceedings in complaint case quashed.
     [Paras 8.4-8.6, 9, 10]

                             Case Law Cited
     State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal [1990] Supp. 3 SCR 259 : (1992)
     Supp. 1 SCC 335; Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia v. Sambhajirao
     Chandrojirao Angre [1988] 2 SCR 930 : (1988) 1 SCC 692 – held
     applicable.
     Prof. R.K. Vijayasarathy v. Sudha Seetharam [2019] 2 SCR 185 :
     (2019) 16 SCC 739; Anand Kumar Mohatta & Anr. v. State (NCT
     of Delhi) [2018] 13 SCR 1028 : (2019) 11 SCC 706; Inder Mohan
     Goswami v. State of Uttaranchal [2007] 10 SCR 847 : (2007) 12
     SCC 1; Vishal Noble Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2024 SCC
     OnLine SC 1680; State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy [1977] 3
     SCR 113 : (1977) 2 SCC 699 – referred to.

                               List of Acts
     Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Penal Code, 1860; Land
     Revenue Act, 1901.

                            List of Keywords
     Quashing the complaint; Conspiracy; Forged will; Criminal breach
     of trust; Cheating by impersonation; Cheating and dishonestly
     inducing delivery of property; ex-parte ad-interim order; Mutation
     order; Abuse of process of law; Unregistered Will; Permanent
     injunction; Disguise civil dispute as criminal.
1958                                                       [2025] 7 S.C.R.

                        Supreme Court Reports


                           Case Arising From
     CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
     3300 of 2025
     From the Judgment and Order dated 09.04.2019 of the High Court
     of Judicature at Allahabad in A482 No. 6543 of 2003

                        Appearances for Parties
     Advs. for the Appellants:
     Tripurai Ray, Anirudh Ray, Vinayak Mohan, Arjev Jain, E. C. Vidya
     Sagar.
     Advs. for the Respondents:
     D. P. Singh Yadav, Ms. Aneeta Yadav, Ms. Aakanksha Tiwari,
     Ms. Nazish Fatima, Shiv Sagar Tiwari, Bhakti Vardhan Singh.

                Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

                                Judgment

     Nagarathna, J.

     Leave granted.
2.   The present appeal arises out of impugned order dated 09.04.2019
     passed in Application U/S 482 No.6543/2003 by the High Court
     of Allahabad dismissing the application preferred by the accused-
     appellants under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
     1973 (hereinafter “Cr.P.C.”).
     2.1 Vide the impugned Order, the High Court refused to quash
         the Criminal Complaint Case No.627 of 2002 titled, “Balram
         v. Kodai & Ors.” under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471
         of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“hereinafter, “IPC”) pending
         before the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,
         Basti.
3.   Burdened by the fear of his estate being jeopardized and trammeled
     by the alcoholic obsessions of his third son-Ashish Kumar, one Shri
     Ram Baksh Dubey (since deceased) (hereinafter, “testator”) executed
     an unregistered will dated 23.12.1993 bequeathing all his movable
     and immoveable properties in the name of his four daughters-in-law
     as his legatees, who, naturally, are the respective wives of testator’s
[2025] 7 S.C.R.                                                     1959

                Urmila Devi & Others v. Balram & Another


     four sons and are also the accused-appellants herein. The facts of
     the case can be crystallized as under:
     3.1 The testator had four sons, namely Chandra Sekhar, Chandra
         Prakash, Ashish Kumar and Rajesh Kumar. In Village
         Dewaragangabarar, the testator had one-half share in Land
         Nos.416, 639, 640, 618, 643, 656, 632, 656/9, 686, 694.
     3.2 Apprehensive that his third son-Ashish Kumar will waste the
         estate to his intoxicating compulsions and vices, the testator
         bequeathed all his moveable and immoveable properties in
         the name of his four daughters-in-law as his legatees. The
         testator recorded in his will the intent to ensure that his land
         and property are not jeopardized, and his daughters-in-law and
         grandchildren are not deprived of it. To that end, the testator
         bequeathed his property to his daughters-in-law, who, the will
         notes, helped him and cared for him.
     3.3 The testator passed away on 03.01.1994. Soon thereafter,
         his third son-Ashish Kumar executed a registered sale deed
         on 25.04.1994 for his share in testator’s property in favour of
         Complainant-Respondent No.1.
     3.4 It is the case of the accused-appellants that they, unaware of
         the registered sale deed dated 25.04.1994, filed for Mutation
         in, inter alia, Case No.1207 under Section 34 of the Land
         Revenue Act, 1901 on the basis of the will dated 23.12.1993
         and a favourable Mutation Order was passed on 27.09.1994
         by the Tehsildar, Harraiya.
     3.5 As the complainant-respondent No.1 continuously interfered
         with the peaceful possession of the accused-appellants, they
         preferred O.S. No.588 of 1997 on 29.07.1997 before the
         learned Civil Judge Junior Division, Basti seeking a decree of
         permanent injunction against the complainant-respondent no.1
         herein over the disputed land. Vide Order dated 30.07.1997,
         the trial court passed an ex-parte ad-interim order against the
         defendant therein restraining him from carrying out any type of
         construction on the disputed property and not to cut the crop
         on the disputed land.
     3.6 Aggrieved by the interim order of the trial court, the respondent
         filed objections against the Mutation Order dated 27.09.1994
1960                                                       [2025] 7 S.C.R.

                        Supreme Court Reports


         along with an application seeking the recall of the same based
         on the Sale Deed executed on 25.04.1994. However, vide
         order dated 09.01.1998, the objections raised by complainant-
         respondent No.1 were rejected for non-prosecution.
    3.7 Subsequently, on 12.01.2001, complainant-respondent No.1 filed
        an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. alleging that Chandra
        Prakash – one of the sons of the testator – had entered into
        a conspiracy with accused-appellants and forged a fraudulent
        unregistered will after the death of the testator with the intention
        to circumvent the sale deed dated 25.04.1994 executed by
        Ashish Kumar in favour of the respondents.
    3.8 On 09.09.2001, the Investigation Officer submitted his report
        stating that the complainant had no papers of the said land
        and the civil case in respect of disputed land is pending before
        the Tehsildar, Harraiya. Upon receipt of the police report and
        on objections to it by the complainant-respondent No. 1, the
        learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-II, Basti vide order
        dated 18.09.2001 directed registration of the application under
        Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. as a complaint case which was thereafter
        numbered Complaint Case No.627 of 2002. The order notes that
        in support of the application, the receipt of registration, copy of
        the sale deed, copy of the will and copy of the khatauni were
        filed. The complainant was examined under Section 200 Cr.P.C.
        and his father-Sripat and Om Prakash were examined as PW1
        and PW2. Having found a prima facie case made out against
        the accused-appellants, summons were issued on 23.10.2002
        returnable on 27.11.2002.
    3.9 Aggrieved by the registration of the complaint case and issuance
        of summons, the accused-appellants preferred Application U/S.
        482 Cr.P.C. No. 6543/2003 before the Allahabad High Court
        seeking quashing of the Criminal Complaint Case No.627/2002
        and the summons issued thereunder. It was, inter alia, argued
        by the accused-appellants before the High Court that neither
        the will dated 23.12.1993 nor the order of the Tehsildar dated
        09.01.1998 rejecting the objection to the Mutation Order have
        been challenged.
   3.10 During the pendency of the application before the High Court,
        the complainant-respondent No.1 filed a counter-claim in O.S.
[2025] 7 S.C.R.                                                        1961

                Urmila Devi & Others v. Balram & Another


           No.588/1997 preferred by the accused-appellants. However,
           on 22.09.2007, the learned Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division),
           Basti ordered that the suit was liable to be proceeded against
           complainant-respondent No.1 herein ex-parte and that the
           counter-claim was liable to be rejected for want of prosecution
           by complainant-respondent.
     3.11 After a period of sixteen years since institution, the application
          filed by the accused-appellants seeking quashing of the
          complaint case was dismissed vide Impugned Order dated
          09.04.2019. The High Court took the view that the allegations
          clearly satisfy the ingredients of offences under Sections 419,
          420, 467, 468, and 471 IPC and that the question whether
          the document is forged or not is a matter to be examined in
          the inquiry and not at this stage. Having found no miscarriage
          of justice, the High Court found no reason to interfere and
          resultantly, dismissed the application.
4.    Hence, this appeal.
5.    On 08.11.2019, this Court issued notice in the special leave petition
      and stayed further proceedings in Case No.672/02 pending before
      the CJM, Basti.
6.    During the course of submissions, Sri Tripurari Ray, learned counsel
      for the accused-appellant contended that this is not a case where
      any of the ingredients for the alleged offences under Sections 419,
      420, 467, 468, and 471 of the IPC are even prima facie present.
      It was contended that the circumstances make it apparent that the
      criminal proceedings were initiated only to abuse the process of law
      with the oblique aim of settling the civil disputes between the parties.
      6.1 Furthermore, it was contended that the High Court failed to
          appreciate that the Mutation Order in favour of the appellants
          was passed after granting full opportunity to the complainant-
          respondent No.1 and that once the objections filed by the
          complainant-respondent No.1 were dismissed, no further
          proceedings were initiated. Similarly, as no further proceedings
          were ever initiated challenging the rejection of the counter-claim,
          the order rejecting the counter-claim had attained finality.
      6.2 Reliance was placed on the decisions of this Court in Prof.
          R.K. Vijayasarathy v. Sudha Seetharam, (2019) 16 SCC 739
1962                                                       [2025] 7 S.C.R.

                        Supreme Court Reports


          (“R.K. Vijayasarathy”) and Anand Kumar Mohatta & Anr.
          V. State (NCT of Delhi), (2019) 11 SCC 706 (“Anand Kumar
          Mohatta”), to contend that the High Court should have been
          vigilant enough and exercised its inherent powers under Section
          482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash proceedings that are essentially of
          a civil nature but have been given the disguise of a criminal
          offence with a veiled object.
7.   Per contra, it was argued by Sri D.P. Singh Yadav, learned counsel
     on behalf of complainant-respondent No.1 that the High Court was
     correct in observing that the allegations in the complaint clearly
     satisfied the ingredients of the offences under Sections 419, 420,
     467, 468 and 471 of the IPC and that the question of ascertaining
     the veracity of forgery is subject to determination by trial. It was
     therefore argued that the High Court had rightly construed the
     dispute to be of a criminal nature and refused to quash the complaint
     case.
8.   We have heard learned counsel for the respective parties at length
     and perused the material on record. We have given our thorough
     consideration to the arguments advanced at the bar in light of the
     material on record.
     8.1 At the outset, we may place reliance on the seminal judgment
         of this Court in the case of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal,
         1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 (“Bhajan Lal”) with particular reference
         to paragraph ‘102’ therein and sub-paras 1, 3, 5 and 7, which
         read as under:
               “102. (1) 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.
                                   ***
               (3) Where the uncontroverted 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.
                                   ***
[2025] 7 S.C.R.                                                         1963

                Urmila Devi & Others v. Balram & Another


                (5) 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.
                                    ***
                (7) 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.”
     8.2 On perusal of the record, it is noted that based on the complaint
         filed by complainant-respondent No.1, a complaint case No.
         627/2002 was registered against the appellants under Sections
         419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the IPC. For ease of reference,
         the aforesaid Sections are extracted as under:
                “419. Punishment for cheating by personation.-
                Whoever cheats by personation shall be punished with
                imprisonment of either description for a term which
                may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.
                420. Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of
                property.- Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly
                induces the person deceived to deliver any property
                to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole
                or any part of a valuable security, or anything which
                is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being
                converted into a valuable security, shall be punished
                with imprisonment of either description for a term
                which may extend to seven years, and shall also be
                liable to fine.

                       xxx                xxx              xxx
                467. Forgery of valuable security, will etc.-
                Whoever forges a document which purports to be a
                valuable security or a will, or an authority to adopt
                a son, or which purports to give authority to any
                person to make or transfer any valuable security, or
1964                                                      [2025] 7 S.C.R.

                       Supreme Court Reports


              to receive the principal, interest or dividends thereon,
              or to receive or deliver any money, movable property,
              or valuable security, or any document purporting
              to be an acquittance or receipt acknowledging the
              payment of money, or an acquittance or receipt for the
              delivery of any movable property or valuable security,
              shall be punished with [imprisonment for life], or with
              imprisonment of either description for a term which
              may extend to ten years, and also be liable to fine.

                      xxx               xxx               xxx
              468. Forgery for purpose of cheating.- Whoever
              commits forgery, intending that the [document or
              electronic record forged] shall be used for the purpose
              of cheating, shall be punished with imprisonment of
              either description for a term which may extend to
              seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.

                      xxx               xxx              xxx
              471. Using as genuine a forged document
              or electronic record.- Whoever fraudulently or
              dishonestly uses as genuine any document or
              electronic record which he knows or has reason to
              believe to be a forged document or electronic record,
              shall be punished in the same manner as if he had
              forged such document or electronic record.”
    8.3 Upon giving our thorough consideration to the arguments
        advanced at the bar, we fail to understand as to how the
        allegations against the appellants herein who are only legatees
        under the Will in question, could be sustained in light of the
        material on record.
    8.4 The allegations against the accused-appellants, in sum and
        substance, are that they entered into a conspiracy with other
        individuals to fabricate a forged will after the death of the
        testator that was then used to circumvent the sale deed dated
        25.04.1994.
    8.5 Upon appreciating the facts and circumstances, we do not find
        that the offences aforementioned are made out in the present
[2025] 7 S.C.R.                                                          1965

                Urmila Devi & Others v. Balram & Another


           case. Neither do we find any criminal breach of trust nor do
           we find any cheating by impersonation. We also do not find
           any cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property. In
           these circumstances, we fail to see how it could be alleged
           that the accused-appellants cheated and dishonestly induced
           the complainant-respondent No.1.
     8.6 It is writ large on the face of the record that the complaint case
         has been employed as a circuitous tool to abuse the process of
         law, especially after the complainant-respondent No.1 failed to
         pursue the remedies available to it. The chronology of events
         indicates that the criminal proceedings in the year 2001 were
         instituted only after approximately seven years of the mutation
         order dated 27.09.1994, four years after the ex-parte ad-interim
         order issued on 30.07.1997 and three years after the rejection of
         the objections to the Mutation Order vide Order dated 09.01.1998.
     8.7 In this regard, our attention was drawn to paras 42-44 and 46
         of Inder Mohan Goswami vs. State of Uttaranchal, (2007)
         12 SCC 1, dealing with Sections 420 and 467 IPC, which are
         extracted hereunder:
                “42. On a reading of the aforesaid section, it is
                manifest that in the definition there are two separate
                classes of acts which the person deceived may be
                induced to do. In the first class of acts he may be
                induced fraudulently or dishonestly to deliver property
                to any person. The second class of acts is the
                doing or omitting to do anything which the person
                deceived would not do or omit to do if he were not
                so deceived. In the first class of cases, the inducing
                must be fraudulent or dishonest. In the second class
                of acts, the inducing must be intentional but need
                not be fraudulent or dishonest. Therefore, it is the
                intention which is the gist of the offence. To hold a
                person guilty of cheating it is necessary to show that
                he had a fraudulent or dishonest intention at the
                time of making the promise. From his mere failure to
                subsequently keep a promise, one cannot presume
                that he all along had a culpable intention to break
                the promise from the beginning.
1966                                                      [2025] 7 S.C.R.

                        Supreme Court Reports


              43. We shall now deal with the ingredients of Section
              467 IPC. …
              44. The following ingredients are essential for
              commission of the offence under Section 467 IPC:
                   1.    the document in question so forged;
                   2.    the accused who forged it;
                   3.    the document is one of the kinds
                         enumerated in the aforementioned section.

                              x          x          x
              46. The court must ensure that criminal prosecution
              is not used as an instrument of harassment or for
              seeking private vendetta or with an ulterior motive
              to pressurise the accused. On analysis of the
              aforementioned cases, we are of the opinion that
              it is neither possible nor desirable to lay down an
              inflexible rule that would govern the exercise of
              inherent jurisdiction. Inherent jurisdiction of the High
              Courts under Section 482 CrPC though wide has to
              be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution and
              only when it is justified by the tests specifically laid
              down in the statute itself and in the aforementioned
              cases. In view of the settled legal position, the
              impugned judgment cannot be sustained.”
                                                 (underlining by us)

    8.8 This Court, in Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia vs. Sambhajirao
        Chandrojirao Angre, (1988) 1 SCC 692, (Madhavrao Jiwajirao
        Scindia) reasoned that the criminal process cannot be utilized
        for any oblique purpose. This Court also observed that the court
        should quash those criminal cases where the chances of an
        ultimate conviction are bleak and no useful purpose is likely to
        be served by continuation of a criminal prosecution.
    8.9 In R.K. Vijayasarathy, this Court held that while exercising
        powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C, a High Court can
        examine whether a matter which is essentially of a civil nature
        has been given a cloak of a criminal offence. Recently, in Vishal
[2025] 7 S.C.R.                                                             1967

                Urmila Devi & Others v. Balram & Another


           Noble Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2024 SCC OnLine SC
           1680, this Court held that courts have to be vigilant to ensure
           that the machinery of criminal justice is not misused for achieving
           oblique motives and agendas. Tacitly endorsing such misuse
           only unnecessarily burdens the courts and the criminal justice
           system. In Anand Kumar Mohatta, this Court, whilst quashing
           the FIR and chargesheet therein, highlighted the following words
           of this Court in State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy, (1977) 2
           SCC 699, that describe the fundamental principle for exercise
           of powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.:
                “7. … In the exercise of this wholesome power, the High
                Court is entitled to quash a proceeding if it comes to
                the conclusion that allowing the proceeding to continue
                would be an abuse of the process of the Court or that
                the ends of justice require that the proceeding ought to
                be quashed. The saving of the High Court’s inherent
                powers, both in civil and criminal matters, is designed to
                achieve a salutary public purpose which is that a court
                proceeding ought not to be permitted to degenerate into
                a weapon of harassment or persecution. In a criminal
                case, the veiled object behind a lame prosecution,
                the very nature of the material on which the structure
                of the prosecution rests and the like would justify the
                High Court in quashing the proceeding in the interest
                of justice.”
                                                    (underlining by us)

9.   On a careful consideration of the aforementioned judicial dicta, we
     find that none of the offences alleged against the accused-appellants
     herein are made out. The instant case is just another one in a string
     of cases filed in recent years that seek to disguise a civil dispute as
     criminal. The complaint case against the accused-appellants has been
     pending for over two decades and its continuation would not serve
     any purpose. The observations made by this Court in Madhavrao
     Jiwajirao Scindia inform our decision and the judgment of this Court
     in the case of Bhajan Lal and particularly sub-paragraphs 1, 3, 5
     and 7 of paragraph 102 extracted above, squarely apply to the facts
     of this case. In our view, it is in the interest of justice that present
     proceedings be quashed.
1968                                                   [2025] 7 S.C.R.

                             Supreme Court Reports


10. In the circumstances, the impugned order of the High Court is set-
    aside and consequently, the proceedings in Complaint Case No.627
    of 2002 pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Basti
    stand quashed. Needless to state, any observations made herein
    shall not have a bearing on any civil proceedings, if any, pending
    between the parties.
     The appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms.

     Result of the case: Appeal allowed.




     †
         Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain