Criminal Law Can’t Be Used to Further Cause In Purely Civil Dispute: Supreme Court Quashes FIR In Land Dispute
The appeal before the Supreme Court was filed by one of the applicants who approached the High Court seeking an interference with an FIR.
Justice Sanjay Kumar, Justice K. Vinod Chandran, Supreme Court
While noting the pendency of a civil suit initiated by the de facto complainant and observing that the criminal law cannot be used to further the cause in a purely civil dispute, the Supreme Court has quashed an FIR in a land dispute matter.
The appeal before the Apex Court was filed by one of the applicants before the High Court seeking an interference with an FIR.
The Division Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice K. Vinod Chandran stated, “Here, a person alleged to be in occupation of a land has filed the complaint and we are unable to find any reason on facts as disclosed from the FIR to even allege any criminality on the appellant herein. Admittedly, there is a civil suit pending as initiated by the de-facto complainant. Criminal law cannot be used to further the cause in a purely civil dispute.”
Senior Advocate Sidharth Luthra represented the Appellant while Additional Advocate General Abhinav Bajaj represented the Respondent.
Factual Background
It was alleged that the appellant, daughter of one Onkar Singh and Mohinder Kaur, obtained right over certain properties of her parents by way of succession after her father’s death. It was the allegation that the mother of the appellant got fake GPAs executed and registered, on the strength of which lands were transferred to the accused Pratap Singh and Prem Pal, who entered into further conveyances with respect to the same properties. It was also alleged that the appellant and her mother did not have title over the entire properties, the title to a portion of which had been divested by transfer to the Government. In the first FIR, the first information statement referred to the appellant, but the appellant was not made one of the accused. In the second FIR, nothing was unearthed regarding the culpability of the appellant.
The impugned common order in two petitions declined relief of quashing holding that though the dispute primarily pertained to land and a civil suit had already been filed, the criminal elements of the case could not be ignored since the accused persons were alleged to have knowingly prepared and executed forged General Power of Attorneys (GPAs), despite being aware that a portion of the land in question was transferred to the State of Uttar Pradesh.
Reasoning
On a perusal of the facts of the case, the Bench noted that the de facto complainant, the second respondent, was said to own certain lands, which were the subject matter of the alleged transaction. The appellant, along with her mother, allegedly executed a GPA on the strength of which and by a separate sale deed, they had conveyed certain properties to the accused. The Bench refused to accept that the GPA was fake, considering the contention that the GPAs were executed by the mother and daughter.
“Further, the jamabandi having been noticed in the sale deed or the vendors having conveyed more property than they had title over cannot lead to any criminal liability as such; which if at all alleged, should be by the purchasers”, it added.
Considering that the complaint was filed by the complainant allegedly in possession of the land, and there was a civil suit pending as initiated by the de-facto complainant, the Bench allowed the appeal and quashed the FIR insofar as the appellant was concerned.
Cause Title: Sunisha Anand v. State of Haryana (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 494)
Appearance
Appellant: Senior Advocate Sidharth Luthra, AOR Supriya Juneja, Advocates Samarth Krishan Luthra, Sougat Pati, Shreya Lamba, Manoviraj Singh, Rushika Patel
Respondent: Additional Advocate General Abhinav Bajaj, AOR Akshay Amritanshu, Advocates Saksham Ojha, Geetashi Chandna, Sarthak Srivastava