2025 Supreme(SC) 726

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
DIPANKAR DATTA, MANMOHAN, JJ.
Punit Beriwala – Appellant
Versus
The State of NCT of Delhi And Ors. – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No.1834 of 2025 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 11042 of 2022)
Decided On : 29-04-2025

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Forgery, cheating and conspiracy – Mere institution of civil proceedings is not a ground for quashing FIR or to hold that dispute is merely a civil dispute – Extraordinary and inherent powers of Court should not be used in a routine manner according to its whims or caprice.
(2) Delay in registration of FIR for offences punishable with imprisonment of more than three years cannot be basis of interdicting a criminal investigation – Delay will assume importance only when complainant fails to give a plausible explanation and whether explanation is plausible or not, has to be decided by Trial Court only after recording evidence.

Headnote:

(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 467/468/471/420/120B – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 482 – Forgery, cheating and conspiracy – Mere institution of civil proceedings is not a ground for quashing FIR or to hold that dispute is merely a civil dispute – Simply because there is a remedy provided for breach of contract, that does not by itself clothe Court to conclude that civil remedy is only remedy and initiation of criminal proceedings, in any manner, will be abuse of process of court – Because offence was committed during a commercial transaction, it would not be sufficient to hold that complaint did not warrant further investigation and if necessary, trial – Extraordinary and inherent powers of Court should not be used in a routine manner according to its whims or caprice – Save in exceptional cases where non-interference would result in miscarriage of justice, Court and judicial process should not interfere at stage of investigation of offences. (Paras 28 and 29)

(B) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 467/468/471/420/120B – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Sections 468 and 482 – Forgery, cheating and conspiracy – FIR quashed by High Court – Conclusion of Single Judge that complaint / FIR on its face did not disclose offences under Sections 467, 468, 471, 420, 120-B IPC against (Respondent Nos. 2 and 3), is factually incorrect – If averments in complaint are to be believed, then subject FIR/complaint reveals commission of cognizable offences by Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 (son and mother) – Right from inception of transaction between parties, Appellant was misrepresented, defrauded, deceived with dishonest and fraudulent intent by (Respondent Nos.2 and 3) – All accused persons acted in conspiracy to deceive and cheat Appellant with no intention of selling subject property to Appellant – Possession of property is still with accused persons – Delay in registration of FIR for offences punishable with imprisonment of more than three years cannot be basis of interdicting a criminal investigation – Delay will assume importance only when complainant fails to give a plausible explanation and whether explanation is plausible or not, has to be decided by Trial Court only after recording evidence – In terms of Section 468 Cr.P.C., there is no period of limitation for offences which are punishable with imprisonment of more than three years – Single Judge should not have limited scope of investigation – Impugned judgment and order set aside and FIR revived. (Paras 31, 32, 33, 37, 40, 43 and 46)

Facts of the case:

Issue which arises for consideration in the present appeal is whether Single Judge, Delhi High Court, was justified in quashing the subject FIR for offences punishable under Section 467/468/471/420/120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 against Vikramjit Singh and Maheep Singh (Respondent Nos. 2 and 3) and whether a cognizable offence against them is prima facie made out from a reading of the subject complaint?

Findings of Court:

In the present case, in view of cross-FIRs, investigating authority will conclude that either receipts in favour of Appellant are forged and fabricated or that receipts are genuine. Complicity of Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 herein can only be ascertained once investigation is permitted to reach its logical conclusion.

Result : Appeal disposed of.