1. The Petitioner, who is a senior citizen, by way of the present Petition, has sought quashing of FIR No.56/2025 dated 28.07.2025 registered at the instance of Vasco Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 465, 468, 471 r/w 420 of IPC, wherein she is arraigned as Accused.

2. The factual matrix leading to the filing of the present Petition, devoid of unnecessary details, can be summarised as under:

                   a) On 14.03.2023, the Petitioner along with Respondent No.3, jointly filed affidavits before the Mamlatdar of Mormugao in connection with the mutation proceedings concerning Survey No.137 and 138 of Vasco city. The affidavits were duly attested by a Notary and submitted to the competent Revenue Authority, which accepted the same and recorded the mutation.

                   b) Almost two years later, Respondent No.3 filed a complaint dated 28.07.2025 before the Vasco Police Station alleging that the Petitioner had sworn a false affidavit claiming to be an Indian National while holding a Portuguese Passport and thereby cheated and misled the Mamlatdar. Acting on this complaint, the Vasco Police Station registered the FIR, which is sought to be quashed by way of the present Petition.

3. Heard Mr Shivan Desai, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, Mr S. Karpe, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Mr E.O. Mendes, learned Counsel for Respondent No.3. Perused the records. Rule. The rule is made returnable forthwith with the consent of and at the request of the learned Counsel for the parties.

4. On behalf of the Petitioner, it was sought to be canvassed that, taking the prosecution case at its highest, no case is made out to prosecute the Petition under Sections 465, 468, 471 or 420 of the IPC. The FIR, even if accepted as true in its entirety, discloses no element of forgery, cheating or fraudulent use of any document. It was also urged that the Petitioner, born and resident in Goa and holding an Overseas Citizen of India (OCI) Card submitted the affidavit to facilitate mutation. The affidavits were duly attested by a Notary Public and submitted to the competent Revenue Authority, which accepted the same and recorded the mutation. It was further argued that the complaint neither alleges inducement nor making of a false document and hence does not attract either Section 420 of IPC or offences of forgery, namely 465, 468, 471 of IPC, which rest on the foundation of Section 464 of IPC (making a false document). It was argued that if Section 464 is not made out, then there is no foundation for making out the offences punishable under Sections 465, 468 and 471 of IPC. Lastly, it was submitted that the Petitioner is an overseas citizen of India and thus entitled to own and hold property in India. Hence, the allegation that "the Mamlatdar was cheated by claiming to be Indian" is also not tenable. The allegations in the FIR stem from personal animosity between the Respondent No.3 and the Petitioner and therefore are not only malafide but also a tool to settle scores with the Petitioner.

5. The prosecution has fairly admitted in their reply that an OCI cardholder can purchase residential property and do the mutation process of the existing or new property. The prayer of the Petitioner to seek quashing of the FIR is opposed by the prosecution primarily on the ground that the investigation is still in progress.

6. On behalf of Respondent No.3, it was contended that he would not have jointly sworn the affidavits for the purpose of mutation before the Mamlatdar of Mormugao had he known that the Petitioner holds a Portuguese passport. He would also contend that if the Petitioner had disclosed that she was a Portuguese national, the Respondent No.3 would have also objected to the Deed of Succession applied by the daughter of the Petitioner. On behalf of Respondent No.3, it was fairly conceded that on account of the hostility towards the Petitioner the Respondent No.3 collected information about her under the RTI Act and filed various complaints to the Mamlatdar and other Government Authorities against the Petitioner. It was argued on behalf of Respondent No.3 that although the trigger for initiating complaints against the Petitioner was his hostility over the issue of property, the data which he has collected and the complaints which he has filed are genuine.

7. The issue before this Court is whether the continuation of the proceedings against the Petitioner would amount to an abuse of law and whether the allegations in the FIR taken at face value and the material collected during investigation, not adverting to the defence, if any, of the Petitioner would fall squarely within the parameters set out in the landmark judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana V/s. Bhajan Lal(1992 SUPP (1) SCC 335).

8. With the assistance of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the learned APP, I have gone through the complaint, the FIR and other documents forming part of the record. I have also perused the respective replies of the State and Respondent No.3. At the outset, the complaint which forms the basis of the FIR is addressed by the Respondent No.3 to the concerned Police Station on 28.07.2025. The crux of this complaint is that on 14.03.2023, the Respondent No.3 and the Petitioner had jointly filed the affidavits for the purpose of mutation before the Mamlatdar of Mormugao. The complaint further alleges that the Petitioner has falsely stated in the affidavits that she is an Indian National, whereas she is holding a Portuguese passport. This amounts to misleading and cheating the Mamlatdar. At the outset, there is no complaint filed by the Mamlatdar of Mormugao that the filing of affidavits by the Petitioner amounted to any criminal offence. It is not in dispute that the Petitioner is a resident of Goa, holding an OCI card. She is lawfully entitled to hold immovable property in the State of Goa and, consequently, do the mutation process in respect of the said properties. The first requirement of attracting the offence of forgery is "making of a false document". Taking the prosecution case at its face value, there is no allegation that the Petitioner has made or prepared a false document within the meaning of Section 464 of the IPC. The offences that are alleged against the Petitioner, namely under Sections 465, 468, 471 of IPC all proceed from the foundation of Section 464 of the IPC. Here it would be apposite to refer to an instructive passage by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Md. Ibrahim and Ors. V/s. State of Bihar and Anr((2009) 8 SCC 751)., which reads as under:

                   "10. Section 467 (insofar as it is relevant to this case) provides that whoever forges a document which purports to be a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment for life or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years and shall also be liable to fine. Section 471, relevant to our purpose, provides that whoever fraudulently or dishonestly uses as genuine any document which he knows or has reason to believe to be a forged document, shall be punished in the same manner as if he had forged such document.

                   11. Section 470 defines a forged document as a false document made by forgery. The term "forgery" used in these two sections is defined in Section 463. Whoever makes any false documents with intent to cause damage or injury to the public or to any person, or to support any claim or title, or to cause any person to part with property, or to enter into express or implied contract, or with intent to commit fraud or that the fraud may be committed, commits forgery."

In the facts of the present case, the allegations against the Petitioner do not come within the categories of false documents as set out hereinabove. Hence, in my opinion, the prosecution has failed to make out a prima facie case for attracting the offences punishable under Sections 465, 468 and 471 of IPC.

9. Insofar as the allegations of cheating are concerned, taking the allegations in the complaint to be true and correct, no loss is occasioned to the Petitioner in any manner. No loss is also occasioned to the State. Even assuming that the Petitioner did not reveal the fact that she had a Portuguese passport, there was no impediment to her applying for mutation, in view of the fact that she could legally purchase/hold a residential property in Goa. Moreover, there is no delivery of any property or intentional omission of an act likely to cause damage or harm to the body, mind, reputation or property of the Petitioner hereinabove. Hence, taking the case of the prosecution at face value no ingredients of cheating are made out which would attract the offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC.

10. In the light of the aforesaid facts and discussion, the continuation of the proceedings against the Petitioner would amount to an abuse of law since the complaint, the FIR and the investigation emanating therefrom fall squarely within the parameters set out in the landmark judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana V/s. Bhajan Lal (supra).

11. In view thereof, the Criminal Writ Petition is allowed. The FIR No.56/2025 dated 28.07.2025 registered at the instance of Vasco Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 465, 468, 471 r/w 420 of IPC against the Petitioner is quashed and set aside.

12. Rule is made absolute in the above terms.