1 CGHC010225252025 2026:CGHC:37313-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1825 of 2025 1 - Trilochan Singh Saluja S/o Late Niranjan Singh Saluja Aged About 70 Years R/o Raipur Road Bypass, Sonalika Tractor Show Room, Kawardha, Police Station And Tahsil - Kawardha, District- Kabirdham (C.G.) 2 - Dr. Arvinder Singh Chhabra S/o Shri Harjinder Singh Chhabra Aged About 36 Years (Wrongly Dr. Has Not Been Mentioned In Cause Title), Occupation - Homeopathy Doctor, R/o Raipur Road Bypass, Sonalika Tractor Show Room, Kawardha, Police Station And Tahsil - Kawardha, District- Kabirdham (C.G.) ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Police Station - Kabirdham, District- Kabirdham (C.G.) 2 - Navneet Kaur Saluja D/o Shri Trilochan Singh Saluja Aged About 36 Years R/o Behind Old Nagar Palika, Bahadur Ganj Ward, Kawardha, Police Station And Tahsil - Kabirdham, District- Kabirdham (C.G.) --- Respondent(s) (cause title taken from CIS) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, Sr. Advocate along with Mr. Vaibhav A. Goverdhan, Advocate For Respondent No. 1 For Respondent No. 2 : : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, Govt. Advocate Mr. Abhishek Sinha, Sr. Advocate along with Mr. Ghanshyam Patel, Advocate SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Digitally signed by SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Date: 2026.08.29 13:33:49 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice, 20 .08.2026 1. Heard Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, Sr. Advocate along with Mr. Vaibhav A. Goverdhan, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, Govt. Advocate for Respondent No. 1/ State as well as Mr. Abhishek Sinha, Sr. Advocate along with Mr. Ghanshyam Patel, learned counsel for Respondent No. 2/ Complainant. 2. The present petition under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Surakhsa Sanhita, 2023, has been filed by the petitioner with the following relief:- “A. quash the FIR, in crime no. 35/2022, dated 12.01.2022 lodged at Police Station Kabirdham, District Kabirdham (C.G.), u/s 120-B, 34, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471; & entire challan no. 46/2025 (Annex. P-1) dated 14.05.2025, filed under section u/s 120-B, 34, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 filed by police of Police Station Kabirdham, District Kabirdham (C.G.) against the petitioners and; B. to quash the impugned order of taking cognizance of offence against the petitioners dated 14.05.2025 (Annex. P-2) u/s 120-B, 34, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kabirdham District - Kabirdham (C.G.) in criminal Case no. 2936/2025 in the interest of justice.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent/complainant is the real daughter of petitioner No.1 and petitioner No.2 is her brother-in-law. On the basis of an order dated 21.12.2021 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kawardha, on an application under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C., 3 FIR bearing Crime No.35/2022 was registered on 12.01.2022 against the petitioners for offences under Sections 120-B, 34, 420, 465, 468 and 471 of the IPC. The allegation is that a TATA Truck bearing registration No. CG/09/JC/2491, which was in possession of the complainant, was allegedly sold by the petitioners to co-accused Niyajuddin without her consent by forging her signature. The complainant claimed that the disputed signature was examined by a handwriting expert and was found not to be hers. The petitioners were arrested on 19.09.2022 and were subsequently released on bail on 14.10.2022 in MCRC No.8562/2022. During investigation, statements of witnesses were recorded and seizures were made. The police also sought the specimen signature of the complainant; however, she refused to provide the same. After approximately three years of registration of the FIR, the police filed the charge-sheet on 14.05.2025 against the petitioners and co-accused Niyajuddin. On the same date, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kabirdham, took cognizance of offences under Sections 120-B, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 34 of the IPC in Criminal Case No.2936/2025. The petitioners have therefore approached this Court seeking quashing of the charge-sheet and the order taking cognizance, contending that even if the prosecution case is taken at its face value, the essential ingredients of the alleged offences are not made out and continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of law. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would further submit that the criminal proceedings have been initiated in the backdrop of an existing family and property dispute between the parties. He would submit that the petitioners had earlier executed a Will in favour of the 4 complainant/respondent No.2 on 19.11.2019 in respect of the immovable property situated at Ward No.26, Darripara, Kawardha, which was subsequently revoked on 23.07.2021, whereas the FIR came to be lodged only on 12.01.2022. According to learned counsel, the said sequence of events assumes significance as it demonstrates that the dispute between the parties existed even prior to registration of the FIR and that the criminal proceedings are an offshoot of the continuing dispute relating to family property and rights. He would further submit that the wife of petitioner No.1 and mother of respondent No.2, namely Satpal Kaul Saluja, had instituted Civil Suit No.67-A/2021 against the wife of petitioner No.2 in respect of the suit land situated at Village Chhilha, District Kabirdham, claiming title over the said property, which was ultimately decreed on the basis of compromise between the parties vide judgment and decree dated 02.05.2022. The aforesaid circumstances, according to learned counsel, clearly establish the existence of a serious inter se family and property dispute between the parties. He would further submit that respondent No.2/complainant had also lodged a separate report against petitioner No.2 alleging commission of offences under Sections 294, 354, 354-A, 323 and 506-I of the IPC in relation to an alleged incident dated 09.04.2022, pursuant to which petitioner No.2 faced criminal prosecution in Criminal Case No.2228/2022 before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kabirdham. However, petitioner No.2 was ultimately acquitted of all the alleged offences vide judgment dated 02.03.2026. It is submitted that the aforesaid subsequent prosecution and the eventual acquittal of petitioner No.2, when considered along with the pending family and property disputes, further demonstrate the strained relationship between the parties and lend support to the petitioners' 5 contention that criminal proceedings are being resorted to for settling personal grievances and exerting pressure upon them. Learned counsel would contend that these surrounding circumstances materially weaken the allegation that the petitioners had any dishonest or criminal intention and rather indicate that the present prosecution has arisen out of the continuing dispute between the family members. He would, therefore, submit that the material collected during investigation, including the bank statement, loan closure documents, statement of the Notary, the conduct of the complainant in relation to the sale and transfer of the vehicle, as well as the aforesaid antecedent and subsequent circumstances, does not disclose the necessary ingredients of the offences alleged against the petitioners. There is no material to establish any wrongful loss to the complainant or wrongful gain to the petitioners, nor is there any reliable material demonstrating that the petitioners had forged the alleged document or acted with the requisite dishonest intention. According to learned counsel, the entire prosecution is essentially an attempt to give a criminal colour to a private family and property dispute and to settle personal scores. Continuation of such proceedings would, therefore, amount to an abuse of the process of law, and accordingly the charge-sheet, order taking cognizance and all consequential proceedings deserve to be quashed in exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of this Court. 5. Learned State counsel opposing the petition submits that the contentions advanced by the petitioners are devoid of merit and that the FIR, charge-sheet and order taking cognizance disclose sufficient prima facie material against the petitioners for the offences under Sections 120-B, 34, 420, 465, 467, 468 and 471 of the IPC. It is submitted that, as per the FIR and the material collected during investigation, the petitioners, in connivance 6 with co-accused Niyajuddin, allegedly forged the signature of the respondent/complainant and sold the truck bearing registration No. CG-09- JC-2491 for consideration of about Rs.20 lakhs. Pursuant to the order dated 21.12.2021 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C., the FIR was registered and the matter was duly investigated, during which statements of the complainant and other witnesses were recorded and relevant documentary evidence was collected, culminating in filing of the charge-sheet on 14.05.2025. The learned Trial Court, upon perusal of the material collected during investigation, has taken cognizance of the aforesaid offences. It is further submitted that the challenge to the order taking cognizance is premature, as the proceedings are pending before the Trial Court and the petitioners have an efficacious statutory remedy of revision, which has not been availed. Learned State counsel submits that this Court, in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction, ought not to interfere with a lawful investigation and prosecution when the material on record prima facie discloses commission of cognizable offences. Reliance is placed upon the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, AIR 1992 SC 604 and State of Telangana v. Habib Abdullah Jeelani, (2017) 2 SCC 779, and it is submitted that none of the grounds warranting interference are attracted in the present case. Accordingly, it is prayed that the petition, being devoid of merit, be dismissed. 6. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 submits that the petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed, as the material collected during investigation prima facie establishes the commission of offences under Sections 120-B, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 34 of the IPC by the petitioners. It is submitted that the vehicle bearing registration No. CG- 7 09-JC-2491 was registered exclusively in the name of respondent No.2 and remained in the physical possession and control of the petitioners, who, without her knowledge, consent or authority, sold the vehicle to co-accused Niyajuddin by preparing and using forged and fabricated transfer documents bearing her forged signatures. The statement of the vehicle driver also establishes the possession and control of the petitioners over the vehicle. It is further submitted that the disputed documents were seized during investigation and examined by the handwriting expert/FSL, whose report prima facie confirms that the signatures appearing on the transfer documents do not tally with the signatures of respondent No.2. The investigation culminated in filing of the charge-sheet and supplementary charge-sheet, and the learned Trial Court, upon considering the material on record, has rightly taken cognizance and rejected the application for discharge. Learned counsel further submits that the alleged receipt of sale consideration or operation of the bank account by petitioner No.1 does not establish consent of respondent No.2, particularly when the vehicle was admittedly registered in her name and she had never authorized its sale. The plea of joint ownership is also misconceived, as the document relied upon by the petitioners is merely a finance/loan document and not the Registration Certificate, which establishes respondent No.2 as the registered owner. It is therefore submitted that the allegations involve disputed questions of fact and serious allegations of forgery, cheating and conspiracy, which cannot be examined or adjudicated upon in proceedings under Section 528 of the BNSS/Section 482 Cr.P.C.. Moreover, rejection of the discharge application is amenable to the statutory remedy of revision, which has not been availed by the petitioners. Accordingly, there being sufficient prima facie material 8 against the petitioners and no ground for exercise of inherent jurisdiction being made out, the petition deserves to be dismissed. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material annexed with the petition. 8. Before examining the factual aspects of the matter, it would be apposite to reiterate the settled legal position governing exercise of inherent jurisdiction. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana and others v. Bhajan Lal and others, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, has laid down illustrative categories in which the High Court may exercise its inherent jurisdiction to prevent abuse of the process of law or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. One such category is where the allegations made in the FIR, even if taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not prima facie constitute any offence against the accused. Another category is where the uncontroverted allegations and the material collected during investigation do not disclose commission of any offence or make out a case against the accused. The Supreme Court has also recognized interference where the criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide or has been instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance due to private or personal grudge. 9. It is equally well settled that while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the High Court ordinarily does not undertake a meticulous appreciation of evidence or conduct a mini-trial. However, the said limitation does not prevent the Court from examining whether the allegations and the material collected during investigation, taken at their face value, disclose the basic ingredients of the offences alleged. The inherent jurisdiction is meant precisely to prevent a person from being subjected to a criminal trial where the material placed before the Court does not disclose a sufficient foundation for continuation of such prosecution. 10. In the present case, the foundation of the prosecution is the allegation that the petitioners, in conspiracy with co-accused Niyajuddin, forged the signature of respondent No.2 on the documents relating to transfer/sale of Truck bearing 9 registration No.CG-09-JC-2491 and thereafter used the forged documents for transferring the vehicle. Thus, the prosecution case essentially rests upon the allegation of forgery of the signature of respondent No.2 and the consequential allegation of cheating and use of the alleged forged documents. 11. In this regard, we have carefully examined the report of the State Examiner of Questioned Documents, Government of Chhattisgarh, Raipur, which has been placed on record. The questioned signatures have been marked as Q-1 to Q-9. The expert has recorded that the person who wrote the signatures marked S-1 to S-36 and N-1 to N-16 did not write the questioned signatures marked Q-1 to Q-9. However, the second and crucial finding recorded by the expert is that it has not been possible to express any definite opinion regarding the authorship of the questioned signatures Q-1 to Q-9 on the basis of the available data. 12. The aforesaid finding of the State Examiner assumes considerable significance. The report may indicate that the questioned signatures do not tally with the signatures used as comparison standards, but the expert has specifically declined to give any definite opinion regarding the authorship of those questioned signatures. Thus, the report does not state that petitioner No.1 or petitioner No.2 wrote the questioned signatures, nor does it identify either of them as the person who forged the signatures of respondent No.2. 13. In other words, there is a material distinction between a finding that a questioned signature does not tally with the admitted signature of the complainant and a finding that the questioned signature was written or forged by the accused. The former, by itself, does not establish the latter. In the present case, the State Examiner has expressly stated that no definite opinion regarding authorship could be given. Therefore, the expert report does not furnish the necessary connecting link between the alleged forged signatures and the present petitioners. 14. The legal position with regard to handwriting-expert evidence is also well settled. 10 15. In Rajeshbhai Muljibhai Patel and others v. State of Gujarat and another, (2020) 3 SCC 794, the Hon'ble Supreme Court considered a case involving allegations of cheating, forgery and use of forged documents where reliance was placed upon the opinion of a handwriting expert. The Supreme Court observed that the opinion of a handwriting expert is a relevant piece of evidence, but it is not conclusive evidence. The Court further held, in the facts of that case, that continuation of the FIR on the basis of the handwriting-expert opinion amounted to abuse of the process of the Court and quashed the FIR. 16. The aforesaid principle applies with greater force in the present case because the State Examiner has not expressed a positive opinion identifying either of the petitioners as the author of the questioned signatures. Therefore, the expert report cannot, by itself, be treated as sufficient material to establish the involvement of the petitioners in the alleged act of forgery. 17. We may now examine the other material relied upon by the petitioners. It is not in dispute that the parties are closely related. Petitioner No.1 is the father of respondent No.2 and petitioner No.2 is her brother-in-law. The petitioners have placed on record documents showing that the trucks were originally acquired by petitioner No.1 in the name of his deceased son Inderjeet Singh and that, after his death, petitioner No.1 took steps for transferring four trucks, including the truck in question, in favour of respondent No.2. The petitioners have specifically relied upon the affidavit submitted by petitioner No.1 before the Transport Authority for such transfer. 18. The said circumstance is relevant because the prosecution case is not that the petitioners had secretly acquired the vehicle in their own names. On the contrary, the material relied upon by the petitioners indicates that petitioner No.1 had himself taken steps for transferring the vehicle in favour of respondent No.2. This circumstance, by itself, may not exonerate the petitioners, but when considered along with the other material on record, it assumes significance in 11 assessing whether there was a dishonest intention on the part of the petitioners to deprive respondent No.2 of the vehicle. 19. The petitioners have further placed reliance upon the finance documents relating to the vehicle. According to the material relied upon by them, an outstanding loan liability existed against the vehicle and the loan account of respondent No.2 was subsequently closed upon transfer of the liability to the purchaser. The petitioners further contend that an amount of Rs.4,12,600/- was deposited in the bank account of respondent No.2 towards the balance sale consideration and that the said amount was subsequently withdrawn from the account. 20. We are conscious that receipt of money in the account of the complainant cannot, by itself, be treated as conclusive proof of her consent to the sale. Nevertheless, in the peculiar facts of the present case, the said circumstance cannot be ignored altogether, particularly when the prosecution alleges that the entire transaction was clandestine, unauthorized and undertaken without the knowledge of respondent No.2. The closure of the loan account, transfer of the outstanding liability to the purchaser and deposit of the balance amount in the account of respondent No.2 are circumstances which require the prosecution to establish a further connecting link showing that the petitioners dishonestly fabricated the documents and misappropriated the vehicle. 21. Another significant circumstance is the statement of the Notary, Shri Jagdish Singh Thakur, recorded during investigation. As per the material relied upon by the petitioners, the Notary has stated that respondent No.2 and co-accused Niyajuddin appeared before him in connection with the documents relating to the sale of the vehicle and their photographs were affixed on the documents. If the said statement is read along with the loan documents and the subsequent deposit of the sale consideration, it creates a substantial circumstance inconsistent with the allegation that the entire transaction was fabricated behind the back of respondent No.2. 12 22. It is true that the evidentiary value of the aforesaid material is ultimately a matter for trial. However, the question before us is not whether respondent No.2's version has been conclusively disproved. The question is whether the material collected during investigation furnishes sufficient basis to continue the prosecution against the petitioners for the serious offences of forgery, cheating, conspiracy and use of forged documents. In the peculiar circumstances of the present case, we find that the necessary connecting link is conspicuously absent. 23. So far as the offence under Section 420 of the IPC is concerned, the prosecution must prima facie demonstrate the essential ingredients of deception and dishonest or fraudulent intention, resulting in delivery of property or wrongful loss to the person deceived and corresponding wrongful gain. In the present case, the material placed on record by the petitioners shows that the loan liability was discharged/transferred and that an amount towards sale consideration was credited to the account of respondent No.2. The prosecution has not placed any definite material showing that the petitioners themselves obtained the alleged sale consideration as wrongful gain. 24. Similarly, the offences under Sections 465, 467 and 468 of the IPC presuppose the commission of forgery and the requisite connection of the accused with the making of the false document. The offence under Section 471 further requires knowledge or reason to believe that the document was forged and its use as genuine. Merely because the questioned signatures are not found to tally with the comparison signatures, it cannot automatically be inferred that the petitioners forged those signatures or knowingly used the documents as genuine, particularly when the State Examiner has expressly declined to give any definite opinion regarding authorship. 25. The allegation of conspiracy under Section 120-B of the IPC and common intention under Section 34 of the IPC also cannot be sustained merely by making a general allegation of collusion. There must be material circumstances from which the existence of an agreement or common intention and participation of the 13 accused can reasonably be inferred. In the present case, except the allegation that the petitioners were in possession/control of the vehicle and were related to respondent No.2, there is no definite material connecting them with the preparation or authorship of the disputed signatures. 26. The petitioners have also relied upon the circumstances relating to the Will executed in favour of respondent No.2 and its subsequent revocation, as well as various proceedings and complaints between the family members. It is submitted that a Will had earlier been executed in favour of respondent No.2 on 19.11.2019 in respect of the immovable property situated at Ward No.26, Darripara, Kawardha, which was subsequently revoked on 23.07.2021. The FIR in the present case came to be lodged thereafter on 12.01.2022. The said chronology, by itself, may not establish the motive for institution of the FIR; nevertheless, it is a relevant surrounding circumstance while examining the petitioners' contention that the criminal proceedings have arisen in the backdrop of an existing family and property dispute. 27. The existence of such dispute is further reflected from the civil proceedings between the family members. It has been brought on record that the wife of petitioner No.1 and mother of respondent No.2, namely Satpal Kaul Saluja, instituted Civil Suit No.67-A/2021 against the wife of petitioner No.2 in respect of the suit land situated at Village Chhilha, District Kabirdham, claiming title over the said property. The said civil suit was ultimately decreed on the basis of compromise between the parties vide judgment and decree dated 02.05.2022. The existence of such civil litigation and its subsequent resolution by way of compromise clearly indicates that disputes concerning family property and rights were subsisting between the parties during the relevant period. 28. We may also take note of the subsequent criminal proceedings initiated by respondent No.2 against petitioner No.2. Respondent No.2 had lodged a report alleging commission of offences under Sections 294, 354, 354-A, 323 and 506-I of the IPC in respect of an alleged incident dated 09.04.2022, pursuant to which 14 petitioner No.2 faced prosecution in Criminal Case No.2228/2022 before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kabirdham. Petitioner No.2 was ultimately acquitted of all the alleged offences vide judgment dated 02.03.2026. We are conscious that the said prosecution was instituted subsequent to the FIR involved in the present case and, therefore, the subsequent acquittal cannot by itself determine the genuineness or otherwise of the present FIR. Nevertheless, the said circumstance, when considered along with the pre-existing civil and family disputes, is relevant for appreciating the overall relationship between the parties and the petitioners' contention that the parties have been engaged in continuing litigation arising out of their inter se grievances. 29. The aforesaid circumstances, namely, the earlier execution and subsequent revocation of the Will, the civil litigation concerning family property, the subsequent criminal prosecution against petitioner No.2 and his acquittal, and the other disputes between the closely related parties, cannot be viewed in isolation. These circumstances, when considered along with the absence of any definite handwriting-expert opinion connecting the petitioners with the questioned signatures, the statement of the Notary, the transfer/closure of the loan liability and the deposit of Rs.4,12,600/- in the account of respondent No.2, create substantial doubt regarding the prosecution's allegation that the petitioners had acted pursuant to a premeditated and dishonest design to forge documents and cause wrongful loss to respondent No.2. 30. We are not oblivious to the settled principle that mere existence of a civil dispute or family dispute does not, by itself, constitute a ground for quashing a criminal proceeding where the ingredients of a criminal offence are otherwise disclosed. However, in the present case, the existence of the family and property dispute assumes significance because the prosecution material itself fails to provide the essential connecting link between the petitioners and the alleged forgery. The surrounding circumstances, therefore, lend considerable support to the petitioners' contention that the criminal proceedings have been initiated in the 15 backdrop of their continuing personal and property disputes and are being used, at least insofar as the present petitioners are concerned, as a means of exerting pressure and settling personal grievances. 31. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhajan Lal (supra) has specifically recognized that where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or 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, the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court may be exercised to prevent abuse of the process of Court. The present case has to be examined in the light of the aforesaid principle, particularly when the allegations of forgery are unsupported by any definite expert opinion attributing the questioned signatures to the petitioners and the surrounding circumstances disclose the existence of substantial inter se family and property disputes. 32. We are also conscious of the submission of learned State counsel that disputed questions of fact should not be examined in proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and that the petitioners have an alternative remedy of revision. However, availability of an alternative remedy is not an absolute bar to exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of this Court where the Court finds that continuation of the criminal proceeding itself would amount to abuse of process. The inherent jurisdiction exists to secure the ends of justice and to prevent such abuse. 33. The present case is not one where this Court is required to conduct a detailed appreciation of oral evidence or determine the credibility of witnesses. The conclusion reached herein is based primarily upon the prosecution material itself, particularly the State Examiner's report, which does not attribute the questioned signatures to either petitioner, coupled with the documents relating to the vehicle, loan transaction and the statement of the Notary relied upon by the petitioners. The surrounding circumstances relating to the family and property disputes further strengthen the conclusion that there is no sufficient material to establish the requisite criminal intent and participation of the petitioners. 16 34. Thus, on a cumulative consideration of the entire material, we find that there is a substantial deficiency in the prosecution case insofar as the present petitioners are concerned. The very basis of the allegation of forgery is the disputed signatures; however, the State Examiner has not expressed any definite opinion regarding their authorship. There is consequently no scientific material connecting the petitioners with the alleged forgery. The remaining circumstances relied upon by the prosecution, when considered in the light of the documents referred to above, do not sufficiently establish dishonest intention, wrongful gain, wrongful loss, conspiracy or conscious use of a forged document by the petitioners. 35. In our considered opinion, the present case falls within the parameters indicated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhajan Lal (supra), particularly the categories where the uncontroverted allegations and the material collected during investigation do not disclose the commission of the offences alleged against the accused and where continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of law. The principle laid down in Rajeshbhai Muljibhai Patel (supra) also lends substantial support to the petitioners, inasmuch as an uncertain handwriting-expert opinion, without sufficient corroborative material connecting the accused with the alleged forgery, cannot by itself justify continuation of criminal proceedings. 36. Consequently, considering the totality of the circumstances, the nature of the material collected during investigation, the specific finding of the State Examiner that no definite opinion could be expressed regarding the authorship of the questioned signatures, the absence of material establishing wrongful gain or dishonest intention on the part of the petitioners, and the surrounding circumstances disclosing continuing family and property disputes between the parties, we are of the considered view that continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioners would not advance the cause of justice and would amount to abuse of the process of law. 17 37. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. FIR bearing Crime No.35/2022 registered at Police Station Kawardha, District Kabirdham, for offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 34, 420, 465, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, the consequential charge-sheet and the order dated 14.05.2025 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kabirdham taking cognizance in Criminal Case No.2936/2025, and all consequential criminal proceedings arising therefrom, insofar as they relate to the present petitioners, are hereby quashed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Sagrika