Government Circular Discouraging FIR On Civil Disputes Cannot Justify Nine-Year Delay In FIR: Supreme Court Quashes FIR
The Court quashed the FIR arising from longstanding property dispute; noted that criminal process cannot be used to give criminal colour to civil litigation.
The Supreme Court has quashed a criminal case arising out of a decades-old property dispute in Surat, holding that an eight-to-nine-year delay in lodging the FIR alleging cheating, forgery and extortion, coupled with significant improvements in subsequent complaints, indicated an attempt to give criminal colour to a longstanding civil dispute. In the matter, the pertinent alleged incident had occurred in the year 2001, however, an FIR was filed in 2009.
Criticising the Gujarat High Court’s approach, the Bench observed that the material improvement introduced in the later FIR fundamentally altered the nature of the dispute. The Court held that such developments could not be ignored while examining whether criminal proceedings amounted to an abuse of process.
A Division Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi observed, “The delay in registration of the FIR is another circumstance which cannot be ignored. The incidents in question pertain to the year 2001 whereas the FIR came to be registered only on 31.12.2009 after a delay of nearly eight to nine years. The High Court accepted the explanation offered by respondent No. 2 that a Government Circular dated 23.07.2003 discouraged registration of FIRs involving civil disputes. In our view, the said explanation is not wholly satisfactory. The circular itself cannot explain the inaction by respondent No. 2 between 2001 and 2009, particularly when respondent No. 2 was actively litigating before competent courts throughout the said period and had access to all legal remedies including under Sections 154(3), 156(3) and 200 of the CrPC”.
Senior Advocate Nachiketa Joshi appeared for the appellant and Swati Ghildiyal, AOR appeared for the respondent.
While allowing the appeals and set aside the Gujarat High Court’s refusal to quash the FIR registered under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 504, 120-B, 384, 511 and 114 IPC.
For the facts, the dispute concerned ownership claims over Survey No. 157 situated at Village Panas, Surat. The appellants contended that the matter was purely civil in nature and had been pending before civil courts since 2000. They argued that allegations of extortion and intimidation were introduced belatedly through a later FIR after years of litigation over title and ownership.
The Court noted that the complainant had initially lodged a complaint in May 21, 2009 without alleging extortion, threats, or monetary demands. However, in a subsequent FIR lodged seven months later, allegations surfaced for the first time that accused persons had demanded ₹1.5 crore and threatened the complainant with serious consequences.
“In our view, the subsequent introduction of allegations of extortion, demand of money and intimidation in the second complaint materially alters the nature and complexion of the dispute and supports the contention of the appellants that the criminal proceedings are an afterthought intended to give criminal colour to a longstanding civil dispute. Though respondent No. 2 contended that the subsequent FIR merely elaborated upon earlier allegations, we find that the allegation of extortion, which is one of the grave accusations in the FIR, was absent in the first complaint and surfaced only subsequently. Thus, such material improvements cannot be ignored while examining whether the criminal process is being abused or not”, it noted.
The Court relied upon its earlier ruling in Mohd. Wajid v. State of U.P. (2023) 20 SCC 219 to reiterate that courts must closely scrutinise criminal proceedings that appear manifestly vexatious or motivated by personal vendetta.
On the allegations of forgery, the Court held that merely executing documents asserting a disputed ownership claim does not amount to making a “false document” under Section 464 IPC. Referring to Mohd. Ibrahim v. State of Bihar (2009) 8 SCC 751, the Bench observed that a person claiming property as his own cannot automatically be accused of forgery merely because the claim is later found to be legally unsustainable.
The Court also found that the ingredients of cheating and extortion were not made out. It noted that there was no allegation of delivery of property pursuant to deception or threats, which constitutes an essential ingredient of those offences. The allegations relating to criminal intimidation were also found to be vague and unsupported by particulars.
“The present case, viewed in its peculiar facts and circumstances, constitutes all the characteristics of a civil property dispute, which is sought to be converted into criminal proceedings, after several years of civil litigation. We are of the opinion that the criminal process cannot be permitted to become a weapon of harassment and coercion in disputes concerning title over immovable property”, the Bench observed.
Accordingly, the Court quashed the FIR and all consequential proceedings while clarifying that its observations would not affect adjudication of the pending civil suits concerning title and ownership over the Property.
Cause Title: Bhikhubhai Govindbhai Patel & Anr. v. The State Of Gujarat & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 532)
Appearances:
Appellant: Nachiketa Joshi, Sr. Adv., Aniket Seth, Sai Shashank, Sucheta Joshi, Rushabh Kapadia, Vishal Arun Mishra, AOR, Sucheta Joshi, Sai Shashank V, Karishma Rajput, Sagarika Arya, Mohit Joshi, Ayush Anand, AOR, Advocates.
Respondent: Swati Ghildiyal, AOR, Sonakshi Sinha, Dhaval D Vyas, Sr. Adv., Chanchal Kumar Ganguli, AOR, Suruchi Suri, Pratyush Jagirdar, Advocates.