FIR Not Invalid Merely Due To Prior Civil Or Criminal Case, But Must Be Scrutinized For Ulterior Motives If Filed Soon After: J&K High Court

The observation came from Justice Rajesh Sekhri while quashing an FIR under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, and 120-B IPC against petitioner Gagan Kumar and others.

The FIR arose from a complaint lodged by respondent No. 2, one Parshotam Kumar, who alleged that the petitioner, along with co-accused, had forged and fabricated a General Power of Attorney (GPA) to fraudulently transfer and sell a property situated at Jammu. The complainant claimed that the GPA was misused to execute a sale deed in favour of co-accused and to deprive him of his legitimate rights over the property.

However, the petitioner contended that the disputed property was purchased by one Charan Dass, father of respondent No. 2, through a registered sale deed and a GPA was executed in his favour by the then-owner. After the death of Charan Dass, Gagan Kumar and another individual executed a sale deed of the property in question in favour of co-accused Raj Kumar and Parshotam Lal.

The case took a civil turn when respondent No. 2 filed a civil suit in 2014 seeking a declaration that the sale deed executed by the petitioners was null and void, along with consequential relief. However, five years after filing the civil suit, the respondent lodged the present FIR in 2019, alleging fraud and forgery.

Justice Sekhri emphasized that although the mere existence of a civil dispute does not bar criminal prosecution, the timing and circumstances under which the FIR is lodged are crucial in determining the genuineness of the complaint.

The Court noted,

“An FIR cannot be dismissed merely because it follows the filing of a civil or criminal proceeding. However, if an FIR is filed shortly after a civil or criminal proceeding, it must be scrutinized for ulterior motives.”

The Court clarified that civil and criminal remedies can run simultaneously, and it is not uncommon for certain conduct to give rise to both civil and criminal liability. However, it also cautioned that criminal law must not be allowed to be used as a weapon of vengeance or coercion, particularly in private disputes with a dominantly civil flavor.

The court relied on various Supreme Court rulings, including G. Sagar Suri and another vs. State of U.P. and others and Binod Kumar and others vs. State of Bihar and another, to underline that criminal complaints initiated with a mala fide intention, especially to settle civil scores, are an abuse of the legal process.

It also added,

“We need to understand that the determination as to whether an FIR is a Counterblast or not, often involves a disputed question of fact which cannot be resolved by the High Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction, under Section 482 Cr.PC and such determination should be left to the wisdom of the trial court”

In this context, the Court examined the allegations in the FIR vis-a-vis the pleadings in the civil suit and held that the dispute at hand involved allegations of criminal forgery and misrepresentation, which cannot be brushed aside as merely civil in nature.

“While examining an FIR or a complaint which is sought to be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. High Court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the genuineness or otherwise of the allegations contained therein”, the court opined.

In view of these observations the court found the petition devoid of any merit and dismissed the same.

Case Title: Suchet Singh & Anr Vs UT Of J&K

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 175

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment