FIR Filed 23 Years After Civil Suit On Same Facts Raises Doubts Over Bona Fides: Supreme Court Quashes Forgery Case
The Bench said that criminal proceedings initiated after unreasonable delay on same facts must satisfactorily explain the gap or risk being quashed as pressure tactic.
The Supreme Court has held that where a party institutes a civil suit and invokes criminal law on the same cause of action after an inordinate and unexplained delay of over two decades, the delay becomes a crucial factor in assessing the bona fides of the criminal proceedings.
The Court noted that the complainant, now an 80-year-old childless widow, had filed the civil suit in 2001 when she was around 55 years old and was assisted by her brother throughout. In these circumstances, it held that the prolonged delay in initiating criminal proceedings required a satisfactory explanation.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice R. Mahadevan observed, “…it indicates that the aggrieved party also accepts, at least to an extent, that the case involves civil elements. Even after, the aggrieved party is not precluded from invoking criminal law, however, the caveat being the time-factor which can indicate whether the criminal proceedings resorted to are genuine and bona fide, and not meant as a pressure tactic on the opposite party(ies) for getting relief(s) which may have been sought in the civil proceedings”.
“…the stark question which requires to be satisfactorily answered by respondent no.2 in the present case is as to why she did not institute criminal proceedings for about 23 years, at the minimum, from the date on which such alleged crime came to her knowledge”, further observed.
Advocate Abhishek Usha Singh appeared for the appellants and Shaurya Sahay, AOR appeared for the respondents.
The respondent had filed a civil suit in 2001 alleging that the appellants had created a forged Power of Attorney by impersonating her and had used it to execute a Sale Deed in respect of 13 acres of her land.
The suit was decreed ex parte in 2015 and a recall application remains pending, however, in 2024, twenty-three years after the civil suit, the respondent lodged an FIR against the appellants under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 506 IPC on the identical allegations of forgery and impersonation.
The appellants sought quashing before the Allahabad High Court which dismissed the application, finding a prima facie case. The appellants, then, approached the Supreme Court.
The Court found that the respondent had full knowledge of the alleged forged Power of Attorney and Sale Deed since at least 2001 when she filed the civil suit, yet chose to file the FIR only in 2024, a gap of 23 years. The Court held this gap required a satisfactory explanation which was not forthcoming.
“However, in the above background, taking into consideration the factum that respondent no.2 is a childless widow aged about 80 years, at the time of registering FIR No.172 of 2024, we think it is all the more a reason as to why she is required to satisfactorily explain the reason/s for not instituting a criminal case for all these years, when she had filed O.S. No.259 of 2001 in the year 2001, when she was aged roughly 55 years. Further, as the record indicates, she cannot take the plea of being helpless and aged, inasmuch as she was being assisted in the proceedings by her brother, Mr. Nazakat Ali (PW-2)”, the Court said.
Consequentially, the criminal appeal was allowed and the impugned Allahabad High Court judgment was set aside, and the FIR and all subsequent consequential actions were quashed.
The Court expressly clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the pending civil litigations between the parties.
Cause Title: Nazibul Rahim Khan and Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 619)
Appearances:
Appellants: Abhishek Usha Singh, Deeksha Saggi, Advocates, Rituparn Uniyal, AOR.
Respondents: Shaurya Sahay, AOR, Aman Jaiswal, Advocates.