Criminal prosecution cannot be stifled when the FIR prima facie discloses cognizable offences during an ongoing investigation.

In brief

The question

1. Whether the allegations in the FIR constitute a mere civil dispute regarding non-execution of a sale deed or prima facie disclose cognizable criminal offences

The court held

The Court held that the FIR prima facie discloses the commission of cognizable offences and that judicial interference is not warranted when the investigation is incomplete and the accused are untraceable

It also directed

The Court answered that the dispute cannot be treated as merely civil in nature given the lack of title and multiple victims

Consequently, the application for quashing the FIR was dismissed

01Facts

The applicants floated a real estate scheme and executed a Banakhat (Agreement to Sell) with the complainant in 2016 for three plots, receiving Rs. 15,65,000/- in installments

p. 2

When the complainant sought execution of the sale deed in 2021, the applicants provided evasive replies regarding a potential six-lane road project

p. 2

Following the death of the complainant's wife in 2022, it was discovered that the applicants did not own the land upon which the scheme was floated

p. 2

Investigations revealed that approximately 14 other investors had been similarly defrauded

pp. 3, 6-9

The applicants moved the High Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, to quash the FIR (registered under Sections 409, 465, 467, 468, 471, and 120(B) of the IPC) citing inordinate delay and the civil nature of the dispute

pp. 1-3

02Issues

i.1. Whether the allegations in the FIR constitute a mere civil dispute regarding non-execution of a sale deed or prima facie disclose cognizable criminal offences

p. 6

ii.2. Whether the High Court should exercise its inherent jurisdiction to quash the FIR when the investigation is at a crucial stage and the accused are not cooperating

p. 5, 10

03Law Applied

The Court considered Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (analogous to Section 482 of the CrPC) regarding the inherent powers of the High Court to quash proceedings to prevent abuse of process

p. 1, 10

It applied the principle that while purely civil disputes should not be criminalized, acts involving the collection of money for land not owned by the accused prima facie constitute criminal BFS/IPC offences

p. 6

The Court also referenced Bhikhubhai Govindbhai Patel v. State of Gujarat (2026) regarding the ambit of the offence of forgery

pp. 3-4

Provisions in the judgment · 7 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 528

Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 409 Section 465 Section 467 Section 468 Section 471

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 482

04Reasoning

The Court rejected the applicants' contention that the matter was purely civil. It reasoned that because the applicants collected substantial sums from the complainant and 14 other victims under the guise of selling plots they did not own, the matter transcended a simple breach of contract and entered the realm of criminal fraud and breach of trust

p. 6

Regarding the delay in filing the FIR, the Court found the gravity of the allegations and the discovery of multiple victims outweighed the procedural lapse

p. 6

The Court further noted that the applicants had absconded, closed their bank accounts, and failed to cooperate with the ongoing investigation, making it inappropriate to stifle a legitimate prosecution at a "crucial stage"

p. 5, 10