1 CGHC010131782025 2026:CGHC:37313-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1243 of 2025 1 - Trilochan Singh Saluja S/o Late Niranjan Singh Saluja Aged About 70 Years R/o Sonalika Tractor Shoe Room, Raipur Road, Kawardha, Police Station And Tahsil- Kawardha, District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Dr. Arvinder Singh Chhabra S/o Shri Harjinder Singh Aged About 36 Years Occupation- Homeopathy Doctor, R/o Sonalika Tractor Shoe Room, Raipur Road, Kawardha, Police Station And Tahsil- Kawardha, District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station- Kawardha, District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh. 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 - Kawardha, District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh. --- 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 13:45:46 +0530 2 Division Bench: Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble 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. 36/2022, 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. 819/2022 including supplementary challan no. 819-A/2025 (Annex. P-1) , filed under section u/s 120-B, 34, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and; B. to quash the impugned order of taking cognizance of offence dated 19.12.2022 (part of Annex. P-2) u/s 120-B, 34, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kabirdham District - Kabirdham (C.G.) in criminal Case no. 4324/2022 and C. to quash the impugned order dated 25.06.2024 (part of Annex.P-2), passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kabirdham, in Criminal Case No. 4324/2022, whereby application under Section 239 of Criminal Procedure Code 1973 is dismissed, in the interest of justice.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that Respondent No.1/complainant, who is the real daughter of Petitioner No.1 and sister-in-law of Petitioner No.2, alleged that a TATA truck bearing registration No. CG-09-JC-1991, which was in her possession, was given by her to Petitioner No.1. It was alleged that, without her consent, the petitioners sold the said truck to co-accused 3 Salman Momin by forging her signature on the relevant sale documents. On an application under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C., the learned JMFC, Kawardha, directed investigation, pursuant to which FIR No.36/2022 was registered on 12.01.2022 for offences under Sections 120-B, 34, 420, 465, 468 and 471 IPC. The petitioners were arrested on 19.02.2022 and were subsequently granted bail by this Court on 14.10.2022 in MCRC No.8561/2022. After investigation, the police filed the charge-sheet against the petitioners and co-accused Salman Momin, followed by a supplementary charge-sheet in respect of documents obtained from TATA Finance. The learned JMFC took cognizance of the offences on 19.12.2022 in Criminal Case No.4324/2022. The petitioners thereafter preferred an application under Section 239 Cr.P.C. seeking discharge; however, the same was dismissed by the learned trial Court vide order dated 21.06.2024. Hence, the present petition has been preferred contending that, even if the prosecution case is accepted in its entirety, the essential ingredients of the alleged offences are not made out against the petitioners and continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of law. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that, even if the entire prosecution case is accepted on its face value, the essential ingredients of the offences alleged against the petitioners are not made out and continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of law. He would submit that the material collected during investigation itself demonstrates that the respondent/complainant and petitioner No.1 were jointly connected with the truck in question and that the outstanding loan liability payable to TATA Finance was duly discharged pursuant to the sale of the said vehicle. The remaining sale consideration of 4 approximately Rs.4,12,600/- was directly deposited into the bank account of the respondent/complainant, who thereafter withdrew and utilized the said amount. Thus, there was neither any wrongful loss caused to the complainant nor any corresponding wrongful gain derived by the petitioners, which is a material circumstance while considering the allegation of cheating. He would further submit that petitioner No.2, being the brother-in-law of the complainant, had no role in the alleged transaction and has been implicated on account of the existing family and property dispute. The handwriting expert's opinion that the disputed signature does not tally with the admitted signatures of the complainant, by itself, cannot establish that the petitioners forged the said signature, particularly when there is no material identifying either of the petitioners as the person who allegedly affixed the disputed signature and when the complainant admittedly received the sale consideration and the loan liability stood discharged. 5. Learned counsel would further submit that the chronology of events and the surrounding circumstances clearly establish that the dispute between the parties is essentially familial and property-related in nature. It is submitted that an earlier Will was executed in favour of respondent No.2/complainant 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 present FIR came to be lodged on 12.01.2022. He would submit that the said sequence assumes significance in view of the other disputes between the parties, including the earlier complaints, proceedings before the learned SDM and the subsequent litigation. It is further submitted that respondent No.2/complainant had also lodged a 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 5 incident dated 09.04.2022, pursuant to which petitioner No.2 faced prosecution in Criminal Case No.2228/2022 before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kabirdham and was ultimately acquitted of all the offences vide judgment dated 02.03.2026. Learned counsel would also 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 concerning 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. According to learned counsel, the aforesaid circumstances clearly demonstrate the existence of continuing family and property disputes and materially weaken the allegation that the petitioners had any dishonest or fraudulent intention to commit the alleged offences. 6. Learned counsel would, therefore, submit that the entire prosecution material, even if accepted in its entirety, does not disclose the requisite dishonest or fraudulent intention on the part of the petitioners or establish the essential ingredients of the offences alleged against them. The contemporaneous documentary material, including the loan closure documents, bank statements, receipt of the sale consideration by the complainant, the Will and its subsequent revocation, the previous criminal proceedings and the civil litigation relating to the family property, when considered cumulatively, indicates that the criminal proceedings have arisen out of an essentially familial and property-related dispute and appear to have been initiated to settle a personal grudge. The absence of any wrongful gain to the petitioners, wrongful loss to the complainant, or specific role of petitioner No.2, coupled with the absence of material establishing forgery or dishonest intention, renders the allegations against the petitioners inherently 6 improbable. In these circumstances, continuation of the criminal proceedings, despite the absence of the basic ingredients of the alleged offences, would serve no useful purpose and would amount to abuse of the process of law and miscarriage of justice; accordingly, the charge-sheet, the order taking cognizance and the order rejecting the application under Section 239 of the Cr.P.C. deserve to be quashed and the petitioners are entitled to the relief sought. 7. Learned State counsel, opposing the petition, submits that the FIR was registered pursuant to the order passed by the learned Magistrate under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. and the investigation was conducted in accordance with law, during which the allegations regarding unauthorized sale of the truck, forging of the complainant’s signature and commission of offences under Sections 120-B, 34, 420, 465, 467, 468 and 471 of the IPC were found to disclose a prima facie case against the petitioners. It is submitted that, after completion of investigation, the charge-sheet as well as supplementary charge-sheet were filed, cognizance was taken by the learned trial Court and the application preferred by the petitioners under Section 239 of the Cr.P.C. has also been dismissed; therefore, the petitioners have an adequate opportunity to establish their defence before the learned trial Court by leading appropriate evidence. Learned State counsel further submits that the disputed questions relating to the genuineness of the signatures, consent of the complainant, receipt and utilization of the sale consideration and the respective roles of the petitioners are matters of evidence which cannot be adjudicated in proceedings for quashing the FIR/charge-sheet. Relying upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 and Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, (2021), it is 7 submitted that the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is extraordinary and is required to be exercised sparingly and with circumspection, and the High Court should not undertake an enquiry into the reliability or genuineness of the allegations or appreciate the defence of the accused at this stage. Since the allegations in the FIR and the material collected during investigation prima facie disclose commission of cognizable offences and the matter has already reached the stage of trial, no exceptional circumstance warranting exercise of inherent jurisdiction is made out. Accordingly, it is submitted that the petition is devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed, leaving the petitioners to raise all their factual and legal defences before the learned trial Court in accordance with law. 8. Learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.2/complainant, opposing the petition, submits that the present petition under Section 528 of the BNSS is misconceived and liable to be dismissed, particularly when the petitioners have an efficacious statutory remedy of criminal revision against the order rejecting their application for discharge under Section 239 Cr.P.C. It is submitted that the TATA Truck bearing Registration No. CG-09-JC-1991 was registered exclusively in the name of Respondent No.2 and remained in the physical possession and operational control of the petitioners, who had no authority or consent to sell or transfer the vehicle to co-accused Salman Momin. The complainant never executed or signed any transfer document, NOC or sale agreement in favour of the purchaser, whereas the documents seized during investigation were examined by the handwriting expert and the report categorically opined that the disputed signatures do not tally with the admitted/specimen signatures of the complainant, thereby furnishing prima facie material regarding forgery and use of forged documents. It is further submitted that the plea of the petitioners that the complainant consented to 8 the sale or was a joint owner is a disputed question of fact, which cannot be adjudicated in proceedings under Section 528 BNSS/Section 482 Cr.P.C. merely on the basis of the defence documents relied upon by the petitioners. The allegation that the sale consideration was deposited in the complainant's bank account also does not exonerate the petitioners, particularly when the complainant disputes having knowledge or consented to the transaction and asserts that the account was being operated and controlled by Petitioner No.1. The investigation has already culminated in filing of the main and supplementary charge-sheets containing sufficient material to establish a prima facie case for offences under Sections 120-B, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 34 IPC, and the learned Trial Court has rightly taken cognizance and rejected the discharge application. At this stage, this Court cannot conduct a mini-trial, appreciate the evidentiary value of the handwriting report, determine the genuineness of the signatures, or adjudicate the rival claims regarding ownership, consent and utilization of the sale consideration. Accordingly, it is submitted that none of the exceptional circumstances warranting exercise of inherent jurisdiction are made out, and the petition, being devoid of merit, deserves to be dismissed. 9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 10. The petitioners seek quashing of FIR bearing Crime No.36/2022 registered at Police Station Kawardha, District Kabirdham, for offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 34 of the IPC, as well as the consequential criminal proceedings arising therefrom. It is well settled that while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C./Section 528 of the BNSS, this Court ordinarily does not undertake meticulous appreciation of evidence or conduct a mini-trial. However, the 9 inherent jurisdiction is intended to secure the ends of justice and to prevent abuse of the process of Court and, therefore, where the allegations contained in the FIR and the material collected during investigation, even if taken at their face value, fail to disclose the basic ingredients of the offences alleged, this Court would be justified in exercising its inherent jurisdiction. The parameters laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, continue to govern the exercise of such jurisdiction. The power is undoubtedly to be exercised sparingly and with circumspection, but such restraint cannot be construed to mean that the Court must permit a prosecution to continue even where the foundational ingredients of the alleged offences are absent from the prosecution material itself. 11. In the present case, the principal allegation against the petitioners is that truck bearing registration No.CG-09-JC-1991, allegedly belonging exclusively to respondent No.2, was sold to co-accused Salman Momin without her consent by forging her signatures on the relevant documents. The defence of the petitioners is that the vehicle was one of the trucks originally purchased by petitioner No.1 in the name of his deceased son Inderjeet Singh and that, after the death of Inderjeet Singh, petitioner No.1 facilitated transfer of the trucks in favour of respondent No.2 for her livelihood. It is further the case of the petitioners that the parties were members of the same family and, during the COVID-19 period, owing to financial difficulties, the trucks were sold with the knowledge and consent of respondent No.2, the outstanding finance liability was discharged and the remaining sale consideration was paid to respondent No.2. Ordinarily, the rival claims regarding consent and the circumstances in which the vehicle was sold would be matters for appreciation of evidence at trial. However, in 10 the present case, the documentary material forming part of the investigation assumes considerable significance, particularly for determining whether the continuation of the criminal prosecution would advance the cause of justice or would amount to abuse of the process of Court. 12. The financial aspect of the transaction is particularly relevant. The material available on record shows that the outstanding loan liability concerning the vehicle in question was discharged/closed pursuant to the transaction and an amount of Rs.4,12,600/- was directly credited into the bank account of respondent No.2 on 09.07.2021. The record further indicates that in respect of another truck also, an amount of Rs.4,12,600/- was similarly credited into the account of respondent No.2 on 12.07.2021. The subsequent bank transactions relied upon by the petitioners indicate withdrawal of substantial amounts by respondent No.2. The relevant finance documents and statement of account have also been placed on record. These circumstances, though not by themselves conclusive regarding the alleged consent of respondent No.2, are of considerable relevance when the allegation is that the petitioners dishonestly deprived respondent No.2 of her property and obtained wrongful gain for themselves. If the loan liability attached to the vehicle stood discharged and the balance sale consideration was directly credited into the bank account of respondent No.2 herself, the prosecution must demonstrate some further material showing that the petitioners dishonestly obtained the sale proceeds or otherwise caused corresponding wrongful loss to respondent No.2. On the material presently available, such a nexus is conspicuously absent. 13. The allegation of forgery also requires careful consideration. The prosecution substantially relies upon the alleged forged signatures of respondent No.2. The State Examiner of Questioned Documents, in its report 11 dated 22.02.2022, has opined that the person who wrote the specimen signatures marked S-1 to S-36 and N-1 to N-20 did not write the questioned signatures marked Q-1 to Q-9. However, significantly, with regard to the authorship of the questioned signatures, the Expert has expressly recorded that it was not possible to express any definite opinion regarding the authorship of the questioned signatures on the basis of the material available. Thus, the expert opinion may indicate that the questioned signatures do not tally with the signatures supplied as those of respondent No.2, but it does not identify either petitioner No.1 or petitioner No.2 as the person who actually authored or forged the questioned signatures. This distinction is of substantial significance. The mere fact that a disputed signature does not tally with the admitted or specimen signature of the complainant cannot, in the absence of further connecting material, lead to the conclusion that the accused persons themselves forged the said signature. For an offence of forgery, there must be material connecting the accused with the making of the false document or its use with the requisite knowledge and intention. In the present case, the very expert report relied upon by the prosecution stops short of establishing such a connection. 14. It is also significant that the communication of the police authorities dated 26.11.2024 records that respondent No.2 was called upon to produce contemporaneous documents bearing her signatures, but she stated that no such documents were available. The questioned signatures were thereafter compared with the specimen signatures obtained during investigation; however, the Expert could not express any definite opinion regarding the authorship of the questioned signatures. Consequently, there remains a fundamental gap between the allegation that the questioned signatures were not those of respondent No.2 and the further allegation that such signatures 12 were forged by the present petitioners. The latter link is not established even prima facie by the expert opinion relied upon by the prosecution. In these circumstances, merely because the signatures appearing on the questioned documents do not tally with the admitted signatures of respondent No.2, the same cannot, by itself, furnish sufficient foundation for continuing the prosecution against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 465, 467, 468 and 471 of the IPC. 15. So far as the allegation under Section 420 of the IPC is concerned, the essential element of cheating is deception coupled with fraudulent or dishonest inducement, and the existence of dishonest intention is the gist of the offence. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma v. State of Bihar, (2000) 4 SCC 168, has held that fraudulent or dishonest intention is an essential ingredient of the offence of cheating and that such intention must exist at the relevant point of time. Likewise, in Vesa Holdings Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Kerala, (2015) 8 SCC 293, the Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated that the allegations must disclose the necessary ingredients of cheating and that criminal proceedings ought not to be permitted to continue where the necessary criminal intent is absent. Tested on the aforesaid principles, the material available in the present case does not disclose any corresponding wrongful gain obtained by the petitioners from the alleged sale. On the contrary, the financial documents show that the outstanding finance liability was dealt with pursuant to the transaction and the balance amount was credited into the bank account of respondent No.2. The fact that respondent No.2 thereafter withdrew amounts from her own account is also borne out from the material relied upon by the petitioners. Thus, although respondent No.2 may dispute the circumstances in which the vehicle was sold, the objective financial material does not prima facie support the 13 allegation that the petitioners dishonestly obtained the sale proceeds for themselves by deceiving respondent No.2. 16. The circumstances surrounding the relationship between the parties and the events preceding and following the transaction also assume significance. The material on record indicates that petitioner No.1 had earlier transferred/caused the transfer of the trucks in favour of respondent No.2 after the death of his son Inderjeet Singh and had also executed a Will in her favour on 19.11.2019 in respect of the immovable property situated at Ward No.26, Darripara, Kawardha. The said Will was subsequently revoked on 23.07.2021. The present FIR came to be lodged thereafter on 12.01.2022. This chronology, considered along with the other documentary material available on record, is relevant for examining whether petitioner No.1 had, from the inception of the transaction, a dishonest intention to deprive respondent No.2 of her property. The fact that a Will had earlier been executed in favour of respondent No.2 is, at least on the face of the record, not consistent with an inference that petitioner No.1 had from the very beginning intended to dishonestly deprive her of the vehicle or to secure wrongful gain for himself. The subsequent revocation of the Will, followed by disputes between the family members, provides a relevant background in which the allegations contained in the FIR are required to be considered. This Court is conscious that the motive behind lodging an FIR ordinarily ought not to be determined in proceedings under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. nevertheless, admitted and undisputed documentary circumstances can be considered to the limited extent of examining whether the prosecution, taken as a whole, discloses the ingredients of a criminal offence. 17. The existence of continuing disputes between the parties is further borne out from the subsequent proceedings. Respondent No.2 had lodged a 14 report against petitioner No.2 alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 294, 354, 354-A, 323 and 506-I of the IPC in relation to an incident dated 09.04.2022, pursuant to which petitioner No.2 faced prosecution in Criminal Case No.2228/2022 before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kabirdham, and was ultimately acquitted of all the alleged offences vide judgment dated 02.03.2026. Since the said criminal case was instituted subsequent to the lodging of the present FIR on 12.01.2022, it cannot by itself be treated as the cause or motive for registration of the present FIR. Nevertheless, the said subsequent proceeding, when read along with the other material on record, is relevant in demonstrating the continuing strained relationship and litigation between the family members. More importantly, the parties were also involved in civil litigation relating to their family property. 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. 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, coupled with the Will executed in favour of respondent No.2, its subsequent revocation and the continuing criminal disputes, clearly indicates that serious familial and property-related differences existed between the parties. 18. So far as petitioner No.2 is concerned, the prosecution material does not disclose any specific act attributable to him which would establish that he forged the signature of respondent No.2, prepared the questioned documents, or dishonestly received the sale proceeds. The allegation of conspiracy under Section 120-B IPC and common intention under Section 34 15 IPC cannot be sustained merely on the basis of a general allegation of participation, particularly when the substantive offences themselves are not supported by material connecting the particular accused with the alleged acts. Criminal liability cannot be fastened merely on account of the familial relationship between the parties. The absence of a specific role becomes particularly significant in the present case because the expert report itself does not attribute authorship of the questioned signatures to petitioner No.2 and there is no material showing that the sale consideration was received by him. Thus, the prosecution material does not establish even prima facie the necessary nexus between petitioner No.2 and the alleged acts of forgery, cheating or use of forged documents. 19. This Court is conscious of the submission on behalf of respondent No.2 that the disputed questions of fact, including ownership of the vehicle, consent to its sale, the circumstances in which the bank account was operated and the genuineness of the transaction, ought to be left for adjudication by the learned Trial Court. Ordinarily, such submission would carry considerable weight. However, the present case stands on a different footing because this Court is not required to resolve the disputed questions by weighing oral evidence or determining the ultimate truth of the rival versions. The conclusion is being drawn from the prosecution material and the documents forming part of the investigation itself. The expert report relied upon by the prosecution does not attribute authorship of the questioned signatures to either of the petitioners; the financial documents indicate discharge of the loan liability and credit of the sale consideration into the account of respondent No.2; and there is no specific material establishing any wrongful gain to the petitioners or any specific role of petitioner No.2. These circumstances, taken together, disclose a fundamental deficiency in 16 the prosecution case which cannot be cured merely by relegating the petitioners to face a full-fledged criminal trial. 20. It is equally well settled that the inherent power of the High Court is to be exercised sparingly and with circumspection; however, such restraint does not mean that the Court should remain a silent spectator where continuation of the prosecution, on the material available, would result in unnecessary harassment and abuse of the process of Court. The illustrative categories recognised in Bhajan Lal (supra) include cases where, even if the allegations contained in the FIR are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, they do not constitute an offence, as well as cases where the criminal proceedings are manifestly attended with mala fides or are otherwise an abuse of the process of law. In the present case, the cumulative effect of the material is that the disputed signatures have not been attributed by the handwriting expert to either of the petitioners; the Expert has expressly declined to give any definite opinion regarding their authorship; the outstanding finance liability relating to the vehicle was discharged pursuant to the transaction, substantial amounts were credited directly into the bank account of respondent No.2, the prosecution material does not disclose any clear wrongful gain obtained by the petitioners; there is no specific material establishing the role of petitioner No.2 in preparation or use of the alleged forged documents, and the surrounding circumstances disclose serious and continuing family/property disputes between the parties. 21. In view of the aforesaid discussion, even if the allegations contained in the FIR and the material collected during investigation are taken at their face value, the essential ingredients necessary to constitute the offences alleged against the petitioners are not satisfactorily disclosed. In particular, the prosecution material does not establish the necessary nexus between the 17 petitioners and the alleged forgery. The handwriting expert has not attributed the questioned signatures to either petitioner. Likewise, the allegation of cheating is not supported by material demonstrating dishonest inducement accompanied by corresponding wrongful gain to the petitioners and wrongful loss to respondent No.2. The direct credit of the sale consideration into the account of respondent No.2 and discharge of the outstanding finance liability are circumstances which materially weaken the allegation of dishonest deprivation. The existence of the Will executed in favour of respondent No.2 on 19.11.2019 and its subsequent revocation on 23.07.2021, followed by the lodging of the FIR on 12.01.2022, when read with the subsequent criminal prosecution involving petitioner No.2 and the civil litigation relating to the family property, further demonstrates the existence of a background of serious family and property disputes. While these circumstances may not, by themselves, conclusively establish the motive for registration of the FIR, they are certainly relevant when considered cumulatively with the absence of the foundational material necessary to establish the alleged offences. 22. The Court is, therefore, of the considered opinion that the present case is not one where disputed questions of fact alone require the petitioners to face trial. Rather, the deficiency goes to the very foundation of the prosecution case. The material relied upon by the prosecution itself fails to establish the authorship of the alleged forged signatures by the petitioners; fails to disclose a specific role attributable to petitioner No.2; fails to demonstrate the requisite dishonest intention or corresponding wrongful gain in respect of the alleged cheating; and, when considered cumulatively with the documentary material relating to the financial transaction and the surrounding family and property disputes, does not furnish sufficient material to justify continuation of the criminal prosecution. Relegating the petitioners 18 to face a full-fledged criminal trial in such circumstances would serve no useful purpose and would amount to permitting the criminal process to continue despite the absence of the basic ingredients of the alleged offences. The present case, therefore, falls within the parameters recognised by the Hon'ble Supreme Court for exercise of inherent jurisdiction to prevent abuse of the process of Court. 23. Consequently, the present petition is allowed. FIR bearing Crime No.36/2022 registered at Police Station Kawardha, District Kabirdham, for offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 34 of the IPC, the charge-sheet and supplementary charge-sheet arising therefrom, the order dated 19.12.2022 whereby cognizance was taken in Criminal Case No.4324/2022, and the order dated 25.06.2024 rejecting the petitioners' application under Section 239 of the Cr.P.C., insofar as they relate to the present petitioners, are hereby quashed. Consequently, all consequential criminal proceedings pending against the petitioners before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kawardha, District Kabirdham, stand quashed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Sagrika