The Supreme Court has ruled that merely filing a civil suit does not mean a First Information Report (FIR) in a criminal case should be quashed. The Court made this clear while restoring an FIR related to alleged property fraud in the case Punit Beriwala vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors.
The case involved an Agreement to Sell a prime property at Prithvi Raj Road, Delhi. Punit Beriwala alleged that he had entered into an agreement with Bhai Manjit Singh and others in 2004 for the purchase of this property for ₹28 crores. He claimed to have paid ₹1.64 crores and was promised that the property would be converted to freehold. However, it was later discovered that the property had existing mortgages and was later sold to a third party, J.K. Paper Ltd., without his knowledge.
Read Also:- Supreme Court Directs Inclusive eKYC Norms, Recognises Digital Access as Fundamental Right
The FIR was originally quashed by the Delhi High Court, stating the matter was civil in nature. However, the Supreme Court reversed this decision, stating:
“It is trite law that mere institution of civil proceedings is not a ground for quashing the FIR or to hold that the dispute is merely a civil dispute.”
The bench, comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and Justice Manmohan, highlighted that criminal and civil proceedings can go on simultaneously if criminal offences are prima facie made out.
“Simply because there is a remedy for breach of contract, that does not mean civil remedy is the only remedy,” the Court said.
Read Also:- Supreme Court: In Cross-FIR Cases, Both Must Be Investigated Together-Unfair to Quash Only One
The Court emphasized that the accused had misrepresented facts from the beginning. They allegedly allowed Bhai Manjit Singh to pose as the Karta of the HUF (Hindu Undivided Family) despite knowing he wasn’t, leading the appellant to part with large sums of money.
“As per the complaint, right from the inception, the appellant was misrepresented, defrauded, and deceived,” the bench observed.
The Court also noted that similar possession had been given to another person, Ashok Gupta, in 2010, further suggesting a deliberate plan to defraud multiple buyers.
Read Also:- Supreme Court Upholds Validity of Consumer Protection Act's Pecuniary Jurisdiction Rules
The Supreme Court also clarified that delay in lodging the FIR was explained and could not be a reason to block investigation:
“Delay in filing an FIR for offences punishable with more than three years cannot, by itself, be a reason to quash the FIR.”
It was also highlighted that the FIR was filed before the civil suit was stayed and that cross-FIRs were filed by the opposing party, which further strengthened the need for proper investigation.
Read Also:- J&K High Court Clarifies Discretion Under Rule 3(2) for Higher Compassionate Appointments in Police
“In cases involving cross-FIRs, it would be prudent and fair if the investigation was carried out in a comprehensive manner.”
In conclusion, the Supreme Court restored the FIR under Sections 420 (cheating), 467 (forgery), 468, 471, and 120B (criminal conspiracy) of the IPC against Vikramjit Singh and Maheep Singh. The Court reminded that investigating agencies must be allowed to proceed when cognizable offences are disclosed.
Other reports about the judgment can be read here.
Case Title: PUNIT BERIWALA VERSUS THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS.
Appearances:
For Petitioner(s) :Ms. Mukta Gupta, Sr. Adv. Ms. Misha Rohatgi, AOR Mr. Lokesh Bhola, Adv. Mr. Nakul Mohta, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Singh Chauhan, Adv. Ms. Nitya Gupta, Adv. Ms. Aditi Gupta, Adv. Ms. Riya Dhingra, Adv.
For Respondent(s) :Mr. Shyam Diwan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Karan Khanuja, Adv. Mr. Kunal Khanuja, Adv. Mr. Pushpendra Singh Bhadoriya, Adv. Mr. Jasmeet Singh, AOR Mrs. Archana Pathak Dave, A.S.G. Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR Mr. Sanjay Kumar Tyagi, Adv. Mr. Rajan Kumar Chourasia, Adv. Mr. Digvijay Dam, Adv. Mr. Gaurang Bhushan, Adv. Ms. Vanshaja Shukla, AOR
