Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes FIR Alleging Fraudulent Mutation After 25 Years; Holds Stranger to Inheritance Dispute Cannot Invoke Criminal Law When Actual Heir Raises No Grievance

Case Name: Jhabar and Others v. State of Haryana and Another
Date of Judgment: 18 December 2025
Citation: CRM-M-14873-2022
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vinod S. Bhardwaj

Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court allowed a petition under Section 482 CrPC and quashed an FIR registered for offences of cheating, forgery, and criminal conspiracy arising out of a revenue mutation effected decades earlier. The Court held that where the dispute pertains to intra-family succession within one branch of a family, a complainant who is not a legal heir or stakeholder lacks locus to set the criminal law in motion. The Court further held that continuation of criminal proceedings is impermissible when the alleged victim herself disowns any grievance and affirms settlement.

Summary: The FIR was lodged at the instance of the complainant alleging that the accused persons had fraudulently procured a revenue mutation by falsely declaring Manohari Devi, daughter of Ganpat, to be deceased, thereby depriving her of her rightful share in ancestral land. It was alleged that the mutation enabled wrongful succession entries and that the Patwari concerned had facilitated the process without verification.

The High Court examined the pedigree and succession record and found that the property in question exclusively belonged to the branch of Ganpat, whereas the complainant traced lineage to Ganpat’s brother and had no right, title, or interest in the disputed share. The Court held that criminal proceedings initiated by a third party with no locus amounted to unwarranted interference in a purely intra-family inheritance dispute.

Significant weight was attached to the fact that the mutation was effected nearly twenty-five years earlier and that Manohari Devi herself had filed sworn affidavits stating that she had no objection to the succession entries and did not wish to pursue any legal action against her brothers. The Court held that once the only person who could be treated as an aggrieved party has consciously chosen not to contest the succession, continuation of criminal prosecution would serve no purpose.

Applying the principles laid down in Parbatbhai Aahir and Ramgopal, the Court held that the case bore a predominant civil character, that the alleged offence was against property and not society, and that invocation of criminal law in such circumstances would amount to abuse of process.

Decision: The petition was allowed. FIR No. 63 registered under Sections 120-B, 420, 467, 468, and 471 IPC at Police Station Nangal Chaudhary, District Mahendergarh, along with all consequential proceedings, was quashed.