Introduction:
In a significant ruling addressing the misuse of criminal law in disputes that have long remained within the realm of civil litigation, the Supreme Court of India reiterated that although civil and criminal remedies can coexist on the same set of facts, an unreasonable and unexplained delay in invoking criminal jurisdiction may justify the quashing of criminal proceedings. The judgment was delivered by a Bench comprising Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice R. Mahadevan in Nazibul Rahim Khan & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., reported as 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 608.
The case arose from a dispute concerning the alleged execution of a forged Power of Attorney and the consequent sale of land. The complainant, who was arrayed as Respondent No. 2 before the Supreme Court, had instituted a civil suit in the year 2001 challenging the validity of the Power of Attorney and questioning the legality of the sale deed executed on the strength of that document. The allegations made in the civil proceedings essentially revolved around the claim that the Power of Attorney had been forged and had been unlawfully used by the accused persons to transfer her property.
However, despite having knowledge of the alleged forgery and the alleged misuse of her property rights as early as 2001, the complainant did not initiate any criminal proceedings for more than two decades. It was only in the year 2024 that an FIR came to be registered against the appellants on the basis of substantially the same allegations that had formed the foundation of the civil suit filed twenty-three years earlier.
Aggrieved by the initiation of criminal proceedings after such a prolonged period, the appellants approached the courts seeking quashing of the FIR and the consequential criminal case. The matter eventually reached the Supreme Court, which was called upon to determine whether criminal proceedings commenced after an unexplained delay of twenty-three years could be permitted to continue when the complainant had already been pursuing civil remedies on the same factual foundation.
The case presented an important opportunity for the Supreme Court to examine the relationship between civil disputes and criminal prosecutions, the effect of inordinate delay in lodging criminal complaints, and the circumstances under which criminal proceedings may amount to an abuse of the process of law.
Arguments of the Parties:
The appellants contended that the criminal proceedings constituted a clear abuse of the legal process and deserved to be quashed. According to them, the complainant had been fully aware of the alleged forgery and the execution of the disputed sale deed since at least the year 2001, when she instituted a civil suit challenging those very transactions. The appellants argued that if the complainant genuinely believed that criminal offences had been committed, there was no reason for her to remain silent for more than two decades before approaching the criminal justice system.
The appellants emphasized that the allegations contained in the FIR were substantially identical to those already raised in the civil suit. The foundation of both proceedings was the same alleged forged Power of Attorney and the sale deed executed pursuant to it. Therefore, the enormous gap of twenty-three years between the initiation of the civil proceedings and the lodging of the FIR demonstrated that the criminal prosecution was not a bona fide attempt to seek justice but rather an afterthought intended to harass the accused persons.
It was further argued that permitting criminal proceedings after such an extraordinary delay would undermine the principles of fairness and legal certainty. Over the course of two decades, evidence may disappear, witnesses may become unavailable, memories may fade, and the ability of the accused to effectively defend themselves may be seriously compromised. Consequently, the criminal proceedings were liable to be terminated in the interests of justice.
The appellants also relied upon judicial precedents cautioning courts against allowing criminal law to be used as a weapon in civil disputes. They submitted that the complainant’s conduct revealed an attempt to transform a long-standing civil dispute into a criminal prosecution after an unreasonable lapse of time. Such conduct, according to the appellants, amounted to misuse of the criminal process.
On the other hand, the complainant sought to justify the continuation of the criminal proceedings. It was argued that there is no statutory limitation period for prosecuting serious criminal offences of the nature alleged in the present case. The complainant maintained that merely because civil proceedings had been instituted earlier did not deprive her of the right to invoke criminal remedies at a later stage.
The complainant emphasized the settled legal principle that civil and criminal proceedings can proceed simultaneously when the facts disclose both civil wrongs and criminal offences. It was contended that the allegations regarding forgery, fraudulent execution of documents, and unlawful transfer of property disclosed serious criminal misconduct that required investigation and adjudication by the criminal courts.
The respondent-State also supported the maintainability of the criminal proceedings. It was argued that allegations of forgery and fraudulent property transactions affect public confidence in legal documentation and therefore warrant criminal prosecution. The State submitted that the existence of a civil dispute does not automatically exclude criminal liability where the ingredients of criminal offences are otherwise made out.
The respondents accordingly urged the Court not to interfere with the FIR and to permit the investigation and prosecution to continue in accordance with law.
Court’s Judgment:
The Supreme Court began its analysis by reaffirming a well-established principle of law that civil and criminal proceedings may coexist and proceed simultaneously on the basis of the same set of facts. The Court observed that many disputes give rise to both civil consequences and criminal liability. Therefore, the mere existence of a civil suit does not prevent an aggrieved person from invoking criminal remedies if the facts disclose the commission of cognizable offences.
However, the Court emphasized that this principle cannot be applied mechanically without considering the surrounding circumstances of each case. While parallel civil and criminal proceedings are legally permissible, the timing and conduct of the parties remain highly relevant in determining whether criminal law is being invoked genuinely or merely as a tool of pressure and harassment.
The Bench noted that the central issue in the present case was not whether civil and criminal remedies could coexist. Rather, the crucial question was why the complainant, despite having full knowledge of the alleged forgery and illegal sale transaction in 2001, chose to wait for approximately twenty-three years before lodging an FIR based on the very same allegations.
The Court found that the complainant had failed to offer any satisfactory explanation for this extraordinary delay. The allegations regarding the forged Power of Attorney and its use in executing the sale deed were already known to her when she instituted the civil suit. In fact, those allegations formed the very basis of the civil litigation commenced in 2001.
The Court therefore posed a fundamental question: if the complainant genuinely believed that criminal offences had been committed, what prevented her from approaching the police immediately or within a reasonable period after gaining knowledge of those alleged offences? The Court observed that no convincing answer had been provided.
The Bench held that although there may not always be a strict statutory limitation period for initiating criminal proceedings in such cases, courts cannot ignore unexplained and unreasonable delays. Delay assumes particular significance when the complainant had complete knowledge of the alleged criminal acts from the very beginning and yet refrained from initiating criminal action for decades.
The Supreme Court observed that criminal law carries serious consequences for the accused, including the possibility of arrest, prosecution, reputational harm, and prolonged litigation. Therefore, courts must carefully scrutinize circumstances where criminal proceedings are initiated after a substantial lapse of time, especially when the underlying dispute has already been pursued through civil litigation.
A significant aspect of the judgment was the Court’s reliance upon the earlier decision in Kishan Singh v. Gurpal Singh. In that case, the Supreme Court had warned against the tendency of unsuccessful or frustrated civil litigants to resort to criminal proceedings as a means of exerting pressure upon their opponents. The Court had observed that when there is a delay in lodging an FIR, courts must insist upon a plausible explanation. In the absence of such an explanation, the delay may prove fatal to the prosecution.
The Supreme Court reproduced and endorsed the observations made in Kishan Singh, where it was emphasized that courts must remain vigilant against attempts to criminalize civil disputes out of frustration, vengeance, or ulterior motives. The judicial process, the Court noted, should not be allowed to degenerate into a mechanism for harassment or persecution.
Applying these principles to the facts before it, the Bench found that the criminal proceedings bore the characteristics of an afterthought. The complainant had consciously chosen the civil forum in 2001 and had pursued her grievances there. Yet, despite alleging forgery and fraud from the outset, she did not seek criminal action for over two decades.
The Court observed that such a prolonged delay created serious doubts regarding the bona fides of the criminal prosecution. The absence of any satisfactory explanation for the delay strengthened the inference that the criminal proceedings had not been initiated in the ordinary course of justice.
The Bench was particularly concerned that permitting such prosecutions would encourage litigants to keep criminal proceedings in reserve as a strategic tool to be deployed whenever civil litigation becomes unsatisfactory or ineffective. Such a practice would undermine the integrity of both civil and criminal justice systems.
The Court clarified that it was not laying down a rigid rule that every delay in lodging an FIR would justify quashing. Each case must be assessed on its own facts. There may be situations where delay is adequately explained by circumstances such as lack of knowledge, coercion, fear, disability, or other legitimate reasons. However, where a complainant has had full knowledge of the alleged offence for decades and provides no satisfactory explanation for remaining inactive, courts are justified in drawing adverse conclusions.
The Supreme Court concluded that the present case represented precisely the type of situation where judicial intervention was necessary to prevent abuse of the criminal process. The allegations in the FIR mirrored those raised in the civil suit filed in 2001. The complainant’s knowledge of the alleged acts was undisputed. Most importantly, there was a complete absence of any convincing explanation for the twenty-three-year delay.
In these circumstances, the Court held that allowing the criminal proceedings to continue would amount to permitting misuse of the criminal justice system. The extraordinary delay rendered the prosecution unsustainable and justified the exercise of the Court’s power to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and quashed the pending criminal proceedings against the appellants.
The judgment serves as an important reminder that while civil and criminal remedies may coexist, litigants cannot be permitted to invoke criminal law after decades of unexplained inaction on the same set of facts. The decision reinforces the principle that criminal courts must not become instruments of vengeance or pressure in long-standing civil disputes. By insisting upon a reasonable explanation for extraordinary delay, the Supreme Court has strengthened safeguards against the misuse of criminal proceedings and reaffirmed the need for fairness, bona fides, and promptness in the administration of criminal justice.