1. This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘BNSS, 2023’), seeking quashment of proceedings against the petitioner in Crime No. 45 of 2024 of EOW Cyb (Cyberabad) Police Station, Cyberabad Commissionerate.

2. The petitioner is arrayed as Accused No. 2 in the aforesaid crime and facing accusations for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 419, 467, 468, 471, 506, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘IPC’).

3. Heard Mr. S. Nagamuthu, learned Senior Counsel, argued on behalf of Mr.S.Malla Rao and Srinivas Mantha, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. Palle Nageswar Rao, learned Public Prosecutor, appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2-State; Mr. V. Raghunath, learned Senior Counsel, argued on behalf of Mr. Kakara Venkata Rao, learned counsel for respondent No.3/de facto complainant and Mr. Chinthala Srikanth, learned counsel for respondent No. 4.

Relevant Facts and Background:

4.1. The dispute concerns approximately 340 acres of land in Sy.No.1007, Kukatpally, which is claimed by Nawab Mir Hashim Ali Khan, S/o. Mohammad Ali, under a sale deed bearing Document No.707 of 1952. The petitioner traces the subsequent transactions relating to the said property to the aforesaid sale deed, including the alleged Hiba and partnership transactions, which ultimately culminated in the formation of M/s. Prime Properties.

               4.2. Earlier, the father of respondent No.3/de facto complainant, namely Mir Hashim Ali Khan, lodged Crime No.305 of 2014, alleging cheating, forgery and fabrication of documents in relation to the same property. According to the petitioner, during the course of the said proceedings, the then ACB, Kukatpally, questioned the identity of the person claiming to be the Hashim Ali Khan referred to in the sale deed of 1952. Crime No.305 of 2014 was subsequently quashed by this Court on 28.01.2019, and the Special Leave Petitions (SLPs) challenging the said order were dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 15.03.2021, as pleaded by the petitioner.

               4.3. The petitioner contends that, notwithstanding the culmination of the earlier proceedings, respondent No.3 approached the police with substantially similar allegations while allegedly suppressing the earlier proceedings and dismissal of the SLPs, resulting in registration of Crime No.45 of 2024 on 05.09.2024. The petitioner asserts that he had no connection with either the alleged property transactions or the earlier criminal proceedings and has been falsely implicated.

               4.4. Respondent No.3/de facto complainant, Mir Abbas Ali Khan, on the other hand, alleges that his late father, Nawab Mir Hashim Ali Khan, was the owner and possessor of the subject land and that S.S. Moinuddin, Yaseen Shakir and others, who had initially assisted his father in property litigation, subsequently conspired to grab the property by fabricating documents and forming M/s. Prime Properties.

               4.5. It is further alleged that the petitioner herein and others, with the alleged assistance or interference of the then ACP, Kukatpally, threatened, tortured and coerced the deceased into declaring himself an imposter and compelled him to sign statements, blank papers and vakalaths. These documents were allegedly used for preparing an affidavit declaring him an imposter and recording his purported consent to the quashing of Crime No.305 of 2014.

               4.6. The de facto complainant further alleges that the police interfered with the investigation in Crime No.305 of 2014 and that the charge-sheet was not properly re-submitted owing to alleged pressure from the then ACP, Kukatpally. His father died on 30.06.2020, and it is alleged that even thereafter attempts were made to create documents portraying him as an imposter and that threats to the complainant and his family continued. On the complaint received on 05.09.2024, the present crime was registered. The complainant seeks investigation and criminal action against the persons responsible, besides protection for himself and his family and grant of a gun licence.

Submissions on Behalf of the Petitioner:

5.1. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that FIR No.45 of 2024 is substantially founded upon the same occurrence and allegations which were the subject matter of Crime No.305 of 2014. It is, therefore, contended that a fresh FIR in respect of the same occurrence and substantially the same allegations is impermissible.

               5.2. Learned Senior Counsel would further submit that Crime No.305 of 2014 had already been quashed by this Court and that the challenge to the said order before the Hon'ble Supreme Court was dismissed, thereby bringing the earlier proceedings to finality. According to the petitioner, the same allegations, having already been the subject matter of criminal proceedings which culminated in the aforesaid orders, cannot be reopened or reviewed through the registration of a fresh FIR.

               5.3. Learned Senior Counsel further contends that respondent No.3/de facto complainant suppressed material facts concerning the earlier FIR and the proceedings arising therefrom. In particular, it is alleged that the order quashing the earlier criminal proceedings, the proceedings before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the SLPs, and the connected civil litigation were not disclosed while approaching the police, thereby allegedly misleading the authorities and resulting in the registration of the present FIR. It is also contended that the Commissioner of Police directed registration of the present FIR without duly considering the earlier proceedings and without undertaking a proper preliminary inquiry, which, according to the petitioner, is contrary to the settled principles governing the exercise of police powers in such circumstances.

               5.4. The petitioner further asserts that he was neither a party to the earlier litigation nor an accused in Crime No.305 of 2014 and that the allegations made against him in the present FIR are vague, general and unsupported by specific material demonstrating his individual involvement in the alleged offences. The petitioner, therefore, alleges that the present FIR has been initiated with a mala fide intention and for an ulterior purpose, namely, to harass him and exert pressure upon him in connection with the pending property dispute, thereby amounting to an abuse of the process of law.

               5.5. It is the further contention of the petitioner that, even if the allegations contained in the FIR are accepted at their face value and taken to be true in their entirety, the essential ingredients of the offences alleged are not made out against the petitioner in particular. On that basis, it is submitted that permitting the criminal proceedings to continue against him would serve no legitimate purpose and would amount to an abuse of the process of the Court.

               5.6. Learned Senior Counsel places reliance upon S.N. Vijayalakshmi v. State of Karnataka, 2025 SCC OnLine 1575, and Delhi Race Club v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2025) 10 SCC 690, in support of the contention concerning the alleged incompatibility and mutual exclusivity of the offences under Sections 406 and 420 of the IPC, in the circumstances considered in those decisions. Reliance is also placed upon State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court recognised the circumstances in which the High Court may exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings.

               5.7. It is contended that, while exercising such jurisdiction, the Court may examine whether the allegations, even if taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, disclose the commission of any offence and whether continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law. Further reliance is placed upon Iqbal v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2023) 8 SCC 734, for the proposition that, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., the Court is required to examine the allegations contained in the FIR/complaint along with the surrounding circumstances relevant to the exercise of its inherent jurisdiction.

               5.8. In view of the aforesaid submissions, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner seeks quashing of FIR No.45 of 2024 insofar as the petitioner is concerned, together with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom.

Submissions on Behalf of Respondent Nos.1 and 2/State:

6.1. Learned Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2/State submits that the allegations in the present FIR, taken at their face value, disclose cognizable offences including cheating, forgery, impersonation, fabrication of documents, criminal breach of trust, criminal intimidation and criminal conspiracy, warranting investigation. The petitioner, therefore, cannot seek quashing merely by characterising the dispute as civil or property-related.

               6.2. It is contended that quashing of Crime No.305 of 2014 does not, by itself, bar investigation into Crime No.45 of 2024, since the latter concerns distinct and subsequent allegations of threats, coercion and torture of the deceased, procurement and fabrication of documents, their subsequent use, and the circumstances surrounding the affidavit dated 19.11.2018 filed in Crl.P. No.6007 of 2014. The State, therefore, disputes the contention that the present FIR is merely a reproduction or continuation of the earlier crime. Whether the two FIRs concern the same transaction or distinct acts, facts and evidence is, according to the State, a matter to be examined during investigation.

               6.3. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 further submit that the earlier investigation into the identity of Mir Hashim Ali Khan cannot foreclose the present investigation, particularly when the present complaint specifically alleges that the deceased was coerced into signing blank papers, vakalaths and statements, which were subsequently utilised in preparing affidavits and facilitating the quashing of the earlier crime. The fact that such coercion was not alleged in the earlier proceedings does not, by itself, conclusively disprove the present allegation, which is a matter of evidence.

               6.4. It is further submitted that the pendency of civil suits, writ petitions or other property litigation does not bar criminal investigation where independent criminal acts are alleged. Conversely, the mere use of criminal terminology cannot sustain a prosecution where the essential ingredients of an offence are absent. The allegations regarding mala fides, fictitious transfers, extortion and fabrication are disputed and, according to the State, cannot justify interference at the threshold when the FIR discloses cognizable offences.

               6.5. Relying upon State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, and Neeharika Infrastructure Private Limited v. State of Maharashtra, (2021) 6 SCC 690, the learned Public Prosecutor submits that the present case does not fall within the exceptional categories warranting exercise of inherent jurisdiction to quash the FIR. The investigation, therefore, ought to be permitted to proceed in accordance with law, leaving all factual and legal questions open for consideration at the appropriate stage. Accordingly, dismissal of the Criminal Petition is sought.

Submissions on Behalf of Respondent No.3/De Facto Complainant:

7.1 Learned Counsel appearing for respondent No.3/de facto complainant submits that the petitioner, along with the other accused, allegedly conspired to unlawfully grab the subject property belonging to his late father and, in furtherance thereof, committed acts of forgery, impersonation, cheating, criminal conspiracy, coercion, intimidation and fabrication and use of documents.

               7.2. It is contended that Crime No.45 of 2024 concerns acts materially distinct from those forming the subject matter of Crime No.305 of 2014 and is therefore not a prohibited second FIR. In particular, the de facto complainant alleges that his father was threatened, tortured and coerced into signing blank papers, vakalaths and statements, which were subsequently used to prepare the affidavit dated 19.11.2018 and facilitate quashing of the earlier crime. Reliance is placed on T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala, (2001) 6 SCC 181, while contending that the present FIR relates to independent subsequent acts and not the same occurrence.

               7.3. The allegation that the deceased was an imposter is specifically disputed. According to respondent No.3, the questions concerning his identity, the circumstances in which the affidavit was obtained, and the alleged fabrication and use of documents are disputed questions of fact requiring investigation and cannot be conclusively determined in proceedings for quashing. It is further submitted that the complaint contains specific allegations and overt acts against the petitioner, including his alleged participation in coercing the deceased and subsequent use of documents bearing his signatures.

               7.4. Respondent No.3 also alleges that substantial amounts were paid by cheques to members of the family and that the petitioner has not satisfactorily explained such payments. The evidentiary significance of those payments, it is submitted, is a matter for investigation. He disputes the title claimed by M/s. Prime Properties, including the alleged Hiba and other transactions, and contends that the accused do not possess a valid registered conveyance establishing the title claimed by them. It is submitted that the High Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., ought not to conduct a mini-trial, assess the evidentiary value of the material, or adjudicate disputed questions concerning identity, title, execution or validity of documents.

               7.5. It is further submitted that the investigation in Crime No.45 of 2024 has substantially progressed, including collection of forensic reports and other material which, according to respondent No.3, supports the allegations in the complaint. The allegation of suppression of the earlier civil, criminal and writ proceedings is denied, and it is contended that the FIR was registered upon the police finding sufficient grounds for investigation.

               7.6. In view of the nature of the allegations and the progress of investigation, respondent No.3 submits that interference at this stage would prejudice the investigation and the criminal process. Accordingly, dismissal of the Criminal Petition and permission to the investigating agency to complete the investigation in accordance with law are sought.

Submissions of the Respondent No.4:

8.1. The respondent No.4/ implead petitioner claims to be a bona fide purchaser of a portion of the disputed property and asserts a direct and substantial interest therein, supported by title and other relevant documents. She claims title under registered sale deed bearing Document No.2151 of 2015 and connected transactions and asserts possession through her vendor, Nawab Mir Hashim Ali Khan.

               8.2. Referring to Crime No.305 of 2014 and Crime No.45 of 2024, the respondent No.4 alleges that property-related documents and statements relied upon in civil and criminal proceedings have been fabricated or manipulated and that false documents were introduced in various proceedings. It is further alleged that proceedings affecting her proprietary and possessory rights were conducted without impleading her, notwithstanding her registered documents and possession.

               8.3. In support of her claim of interest and involvement in the subject matter, she relies upon C.R.P. No.954 of 2020, SLP No.12950 of 2020 and SLP Diary No.8180 of 2021. She further alleges that the petitioner/accused is attempting to utilise the criminal proceedings to advance or protect competing claims over the property and also alleges threats and interference with her possession and property rights.

               8.4. According to the respondent No.4, the allegations in Crime No.45 of 2024 disclose serious cognizable and non-compoundable offences requiring investigation and, if warranted by the material collected, trial. The mere existence of a civil or property dispute, therefore, cannot justify quashing of the FIR at the threshold. The respondent No.4 accordingly seeks dismissal of the petition for quashing, leaving the investigating agency to examine the competing claims, documentary material and allegations in accordance with law.

Analysis and Conclusion:

9. I have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record.

10. The principal contention of the petitioner is that FIR No.45 of 2024 constitutes a second FIR arising out of the very same occurrence and allegations which were earlier the subject matter of Crime No.305 of 2014, and that the proceedings arising out of the earlier crime have already attained finality. On the other hand, the principal objection of respondent No.3/de facto complainant is that the present FIR concerns distinct and subsequent acts of coercion, fabrication and use of documents allegedly committed in the course of, or in connection with, the earlier criminal proceedings and, therefore, is not barred merely by reason of the earlier FIR. In the light of the rival submissions, the first question that falls for consideration is whether the registration of Crime No.45 of 2024 is impermissible in view of the earlier registration of Crime No.305 of 2014.

11. The principle enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in T.T. Antony (supra), is that there cannot ordinarily be a second FIR in respect of the same cognizable offence or the same occurrence, and that subsequent information relating to the same transaction is required to be dealt with in the course of investigation of the first FIR. The underlying principle is intended to prevent successive criminal proceedings in respect of the very same occurrence and thereby avoid abuse of the investigative and criminal process. At the same time, the said principle is attracted only where the subsequent FIR relates to the same occurrence, incident or transaction. It does not operate as an absolute prohibition against registration of a fresh FIR where the allegations relate to a distinct subsequent occurrence or constitute a separate transaction giving rise to independent criminal acts. The distinction between a second FIR concerning the same occurrence and a subsequent FIR founded upon an independent occurrence or transaction has also been considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Babubhai v. State of Gujarat, (2010) 12 SCC 254, and Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah v. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2013) 6 SCC 348. The question, therefore, is not merely whether the two FIRs have a common background, concern the same property or involve some common persons. The material consideration is whether the allegations forming the foundation of the subsequent FIR are substantially the same as those which constituted the subject matter of the earlier FIR or whether the subsequent FIR alleges distinct acts constituting a separate occurrence or transaction.

12. In the present case, there is no serious dispute that both proceedings have their genesis in the dispute concerning the subject property and the rival claims relating to the identity and title of Nawab Mir Hashim Ali Khan. The earlier and present proceedings also contain certain common factual circumstances and, to some extent, involve common persons. However, the allegations in the present FIR are not confined to the original property transactions or to the allegations which formed the subject matter of Crime No.305 of 2014. The de facto complainant has subsequently alleged that, during the course of the earlier proceedings, his father was subjected to threats, coercion and torture and was compelled to sign blank papers, vakalaths and statements, which documents were thereafter allegedly utilised for preparing the affidavit dated 19.11.2018 and for securing the quashing of Crime No.305 of 2014. Thus, the allegations in the present FIR introduce an additional and distinct factual foundation concerning the alleged manner in which the deceased was made to execute or sign documents and the subsequent alleged fabrication and utilisation of such documents in connection with the earlier criminal proceedings.

13. Merely because both crimes arise against the backdrop of the same property dispute, involve certain common persons, or have some common antecedent facts, it cannot be held, at the threshold, that Crime No.45 of 2024 necessarily constitutes a second FIR in respect of the very same occurrence as Crime No.305 of 2014. The relevant enquiry is whether the acts alleged in the present FIR are substantially the same acts which were already the subject matter of the earlier FIR and investigation, or whether they constitute distinct acts giving rise to an independent criminal allegation. In the present case, the allegations concerning the alleged coercion of the deceased, the obtaining of his signatures on blank papers and vakalaths, the preparation and use of the affidavit dated 19.11.2018, and the subsequent acts allegedly connected therewith, cannot, on the basis of the material presently before this Court, be conclusively treated as identical to the allegations forming the subject matter of the earlier crime.

14. The contention that the earlier proceedings have attained finality also requires consideration. The finality attached to the order quashing Crime No.305 of 2014 operates in relation to the criminal proceedings which were the subject matter of that crime. Such finality cannot, by itself, constitute a bar against investigation into an independent offence subsequently alleged to have been committed, particularly where the subsequent allegation concerns acts of coercion, fabrication or use of documents allegedly connected with the earlier proceedings. At the same time, the principle relating to finality cannot be circumvented merely by giving a new description to allegations which have already been adjudicated or concluded. A distinction must, therefore, be maintained between, on the one hand, an impermissible attempt to reopen the very allegations which stood concluded in the earlier proceedings and, on the other, an allegation of an independent subsequent offence arising from distinct acts. Whether the acts alleged in the present FIR ultimately satisfy the latter description is a matter which must be assessed on the basis of the allegations and material available in accordance with law.

15. The petitioner has also contended that the de facto complainant suppressed material facts relating to the earlier FIR, the order of this Court quashing the said FIR, the proceedings arising therefrom before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, and the connected civil litigation. Even assuming that such suppression is ultimately established, the same would not, by itself, render the present FIR liable to be quashed if the complaint independently discloses the commission of cognizable offences. Suppression of material facts may undoubtedly have a bearing upon the credibility of the informant, the manner in which the allegations are assessed during investigation, and the weight to be attached to the complainant's version at the appropriate stage. However, such alleged suppression cannot, in isolation, furnish a sufficient ground for terminating criminal proceedings at the threshold when the FIR otherwise discloses cognizable offences requiring investigation. The question whether the complainant deliberately withheld material facts, the reasons for such alleged omission, and the effect thereof upon the credibility of his allegations are matters which ordinarily require examination on the basis of the record and the evidence collected during investigation.

16. The contention regarding the absence of a preliminary inquiry also does not, by itself, warrant quashing of the FIR. In Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh, (2014) 2 SCC 1, the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that registration of an FIR is mandatory where the information discloses commission of a cognizable offence, while recognising that a limited preliminary inquiry may be undertaken in certain categories of cases for the purpose of ascertaining whether the information discloses a cognizable offence. Therefore, the absence of a preliminary inquiry cannot, by itself, invalidate an FIR where the information supplied to the police discloses cognizable offences. The mere circumstance that the allegations relate to a dispute in respect of which earlier litigation or criminal proceedings existed does not, in the absence of any other legally sustainable ground, make a preliminary inquiry an indispensable pre-condition to registration of the crime. The petitioner has further contended that he was not an accused in Crime No.305 of 2014 and was not connected with the earlier proceedings. That circumstance, by itself, cannot be determinative of the petitioner’s liability in the present crime. The present FIR attributes specific acts to the petitioner, including his alleged participation in coercing the deceased and his alleged involvement in the subsequent utilisation of documents said to have been obtained from him. Whether those allegations are ultimately established by legally admissible evidence is a matter for investigation and, if the material so warrants, trial. At the stage of considering a petition for quashing, the Court is not required to determine whether the prosecution will ultimately succeed. The Court must primarily examine whether, taking the allegations in the FIR at their face value and accepting them in their entirety, the ingredients of cognizable offences are disclosed and whether the allegations, on their face, justify investigation against the petitioner.

17. Likewise, the rival contentions concerning the identity of Mir Hashim Ali Khan, the validity of the alleged Hiba and other property transactions, the title claimed by M/s. Prime Properties, the genuineness or otherwise of the documents, and the circumstances in which the affidavit dated 19.11.2018 came to be executed or filed involve disputed questions of fact. Such questions ordinarily cannot be conclusively adjudicated in proceedings invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of the BNSS, particularly when their resolution would require appreciation of oral and documentary evidence and examination of the circumstances in which the disputed documents came into existence.

18. The existence of civil proceedings concerning the subject property does not, by itself, constitute a bar to criminal investigation where the allegations independently disclose the commission of criminal offences. Civil and criminal remedies may, in an appropriate case, operate in their respective fields. The mere fact that a dispute has a civil or property dimension does not necessarily efface the criminality alleged in respect of independent acts such as forgery, fabrication, impersonation, cheating, intimidation or conspiracy. At the same time, the mere use of criminal terminology in a complaint cannot, by itself, convert a purely civil dispute into a criminal offence. The Court is required to examine whether the factual allegations, taken at their face value, satisfy the essential ingredients of the offences alleged.

19. Insofar as the offences under Sections 406 and 420 of the IPC are concerned, the mere mention of those provisions in the FIR is not conclusive. The factual allegations must disclose the essential ingredients of the respective offences. Section 406 IPC relates to criminal breach of trust and requires the foundational ingredients contemplated by Section 405 IPC, including entrustment and dishonest misappropriation, conversion, use or disposal in violation of the legal or contractual obligation governing the property entrusted. Section 420 IPC, on the other hand, concerns cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property and requires the ingredients contemplated by Section 415 IPC, including the requisite dishonest or fraudulent inducement. The principles referred to in S.N. Vijayalakshmi and Delhi Race Club (supra), therefore require the Court to examine whether the factual allegations disclose the essential ingredients of the particular offences invoked, rather than proceeding merely on the basis of the statutory labels attached to the allegations. However, the accusations in the present case are not confined to Sections 406 and 420 IPC. The FIR also contains allegations relating to impersonation, forgery, fabrication and use of allegedly forged documents, criminal intimidation and conspiracy. Consequently, even assuming that the allegations may not ultimately sustain each and every offence initially invoked, that circumstance by itself would not justify quashing the FIR in its entirety if the remaining allegations disclose cognizable offences requiring investigation.

20. The petitioner has also relied upon State of Haryana (supra), particularly the category concerning criminal proceedings which are manifestly attended with mala fides or instituted with an ulterior motive. There can be no dispute that the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court is available to prevent abuse of the process of law and to secure the ends of justice. However, the power is extraordinary and is required to be exercised sparingly, cautiously and in appropriate cases. In the present matter, the allegations of mala fides and ulterior motive are seriously disputed and are intertwined with the competing claims concerning the subject property. The questions relating to the identity of the deceased, the alleged coercion, the genuineness and execution of the disputed documents, and the circumstances surrounding the affidavit dated 19.11.2018 cannot, at this stage, be conclusively determined merely on the basis of the competing pleadings of the parties. In Neeharika Infrastructure Private Limited (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated the principle that the High Court should ordinarily exercise restraint in interfering with a legitimate investigation at the FIR stage and should not stifle investigation when the information discloses commission of a cognizable offence. At the same time, the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court remains available in appropriate cases where the allegations, even if taken at their face value, fail to disclose an offence or where continuation of the criminal proceedings would clearly amount to an abuse of the process of law.

21. The Court is, therefore, required to strike an appropriate balance between the right of an individual not to be subjected to an unnecessary or legally untenable criminal prosecution and the statutory obligation of the investigating agency to investigate allegations which, on their face, disclose cognizable offences.

Conclusions:

22. Having regard to the aforesaid principles and upon consideration of the allegations contained in Crime No.45 of 2024, this Court is of the considered view that, insofar as the allegations concerning the alleged coercion of the deceased, the obtaining of his signatures on blank papers and vakalaths, the preparation and use of the affidavit dated 19.11.2018, and the alleged subsequent acts connected therewith are concerned, they constitute a factual foundation which is distinguishable, at least at this stage, from the original allegations forming the subject matter of Crime No.305 of 2014. The present FIR, therefore, cannot be held to be barred solely on the ground that the two proceedings arise against the backdrop of the same property dispute or that certain persons and background circumstances are common to both. The principle against registration of a second FIR is attracted where the subsequent FIR concerns the same occurrence or transaction; it does not prohibit investigation into an independent subsequent occurrence merely because it is factually connected with an earlier dispute or proceeding. The petitioner’s specific challenge to his implication in the present crime and to the offences alleged against him must, however, be examined on the allegations contained in the FIR as a whole. The allegations, taken at their face value, attribute specific participation to the petitioner, including alleged involvement in coercing the deceased and in the subsequent utilisation of documents allegedly obtained from him. At this stage, this Court cannot undertake an assessment of the credibility of those allegations or weigh the evidentiary value of the material allegedly collected by the investigating agency. To do so would amount to conducting an evidentiary enquiry or a mini-trial, which is impermissible while exercising inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS.

23. The allegations concerning the identity of the deceased, the validity of the Hiba and other property transactions, the title claimed by M/s. Prime Properties, the genuineness and validity of the disputed documents, the circumstances surrounding the affidavit dated 19.11.2018, and the respective roles of the persons allegedly involved raise questions of fact which require investigation and cannot appropriately be conclusively determined in the present proceedings.

24. Similarly, the mere pendency of civil proceedings concerning the property, the earlier quashing of Crime No.305 of 2014, the alleged suppression of the earlier proceedings, or the allegation that the present complaint is motivated by mala fides does not, on the material presently available, establish that the case falls within any of the exceptional categories warranting exercise of the inherent jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceedings.

25. This Court is, therefore, not persuaded to exercise its inherent jurisdiction to quash Crime No.45 of 2024, either in its entirety or insofar as the petitioner is concerned, at this stage. The allegations disclose cognizable offences and raise factual issues which require investigation. The ultimate truth or otherwise of the allegations, the evidentiary value of the material collected, and the liability, if any, of the petitioner are matters to be determined at the appropriate stage in accordance with law.

26. For the aforesaid reasons, the Criminal Petition is liable to be and is accordingly dismissed, leaving it open to the petitioner to raise all permissible factual and legal contentions before the appropriate forum and at the appropriate stage of the proceedings. The Investigating Agency shall proceed with the investigation strictly in accordance with law and shall not be influenced by any of the observations made in this order, which are confined solely to the adjudication of the present petition for quashing and shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the allegations or the ultimate culpability of any person.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.