Suppression of Pending Remedies and Misrepresentation Disentitle Petitioners to Discretionary Writ Relief and Interim Protection

The petitioners sought to quash FIR No. 0181 of 2025, which alleged offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, and 120-B of the IPC.

The complainant, Vikram Singh Rana, alleged that the petitioners induced him to pay approximately ₹19.01 crore for 25 bighas of land in Purukul through various companies (Sai Ram Infra Project Pvt. Ltd., Avanta Reality, and Prat & Whitney).

The sale deeds were not executed, and the petitioners allegedly forged documents naming the complainant as a nominee to facilitate a 100% share transfer of Avanta Reality to Sai Ram Infra.

While the petitions were pending, the court found that the petitioners had suppressed the fact that they had also filed for anticipatory bail in the Sessions Court, where the prosecution had already committed not to arrest them.

1. Whether the suppression of a parallel anticipatory bail application and the use of contradictory stands regarding money receipts disentitle the petitioners to relief under writ jurisdiction.

2. Whether the dispute is purely civil in nature, warranting the quashing of the FIR.

3. Whether the FIR and preliminary enquiry disclose cognizable offences against the petitioners.

The court primarily applied the doctrine of "Clean Hands," which dictates that a person seeking discretionary relief under Article 226 of the Constitution must disclose all material facts.

It followed established precedents holding that misrepresentation or withholding relevant documents (such as pending bail applications) constitutes suppression and warrants the refusal of relief.

Regarding the quashing of the FIR, the court applied the standard of whether the allegations, if taken at face value, disclose cognizable offences under the Indian Penal Code (IPC), specifically Sections 420 (cheating) and 467/471 (forgery).

The Court observed that the petitioners obtained interim protection by misrepresenting an "apprehension of arrest" to the High Court while the prosecution had already assured their safety in the Sessions Court.

This conduct was termed a "misleading approach".

Substantively, the court rejected the "civil nature" argument, noting that the petitioners took contradictory stands: they denied receiving money while also claiming the complainant (acting as a broker) had already been paid via separate sale deeds.

The court highlighted that a preliminary enquiry by the Circle Officer and the account statements evidenced the receipt of ₹19.01 crore, and one petitioner had previously admitted the receipt in court before attempting to withdraw the statement.

The allegation that a forged document was used to transfer company shares specifically supported the continuation of criminal proceedings.

The court found that the FIR, supported by a preliminary enquiry and account statements, disclosed cognizable offences. Consequently, both writ petitions were dismissed.

The court vacated the interim protection and imposed costs of ₹2,00,000 on the petitioners in WPCRL 1530/2025 and ₹50,000 on the petitioner in WPCRL 1432/2025, to be deposited in the Advocates Welfare Fund.