Civil and Criminal Remedies Can Coexist, But Timing Matters: Supreme Court Quashes 2024 FIR Over 2001 Dispute

The Supreme Court recently observed that both civil and criminal proceedings can be maintainable on the same cause of action and based on the same set of facts and circumstances.

However, Court emphasised that if an aggrieved person wishes to pursue both civil and criminal remedies, there should not be an unreasonable or inordinate gap between initiating the two proceedings.

A Bench of Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and R Mahadevan made the observation while quashing an FIR lodged in 2024 over allegations that had already formed the basis of a civil suit filed in 2001.

Referring to its decision in S N Vijayalakshmi v State of Karnataka (2025), the Bench observed that the initiation of a civil proceeding indicates that a full-fledged trial is required to determine the truth of the allegations through evidence before the competent court.

In other words, the aggrieved party acknowledges, at least to some extent, that the dispute contains civil elements.

Court clarified that a party is not barred from subsequently invoking criminal law. However, the timing of such criminal proceedings is crucial.

"Even after, the aggrieved party is not precluded from invoking criminal law, however, the caveat being the time-factor which can indicate whether the criminal proceedings resorted to are genuine and bona fide, and not meant as a pressure tactic on the opposite party(ies) for getting relief(s) which may have been sought in the civil proceedings," the Bench said.

Court added that in such situations, courts must carefully examine the entire factual background before drawing conclusions.

Why did the Supreme Court quash the 2024 FIR?

Court found that the complainant, Khatoon Jahan, had knowledge of the alleged forgery and impersonation at least since 2001, when she filed a civil suit seeking permanent injunction and cancellation of a 1996 sale deed and the related power of attorney.

In that suit, she alleged that appellants Nos. 1 and 2 had conspired to present appellant No. 3 as her impersonator and execute a sale deed concerning 13 acres of her land through a forged and fabricated power of attorney.

Despite having knowledge of these allegations since 2001, she initiated criminal proceedings only in 2024 on the same factual foundation.

The Supreme Court held that this unexplained delay of over two decades, viewed alongside the long history of litigation and pending disputes between the parties, indicated mala fide intent and amounted to an abuse of the legal process.

As a result, Court quashed the FIR and all consequential proceedings.

What were the appellants' arguments?

The appeal was filed by Nazibul Rahim Khan and others against a July 9, 2025 order of the Allahabad High Court, which had refused to quash the FIR and charge sheet filed against them in 2024.

The appellants argued that the criminal case was filed with mala fide intent and was a misuse of the legal process.

Their counsel submitted that the complainant's sudden decision to file a criminal case in 2024 on facts known to her since 2001 clearly suggested an ulterior motive. According to them, the FIR was intended to pressure the appellants into not pursuing their recall application against an ex parte decree obtained by the complainant in the 2001 suit and to deter them from proceeding with two FIRs already lodged against her.

The appellants also pointed out that they had themselves lodged an FIR in 2002 alleging that the complainant was impersonating the real Khatoon Jahan, who was the wife of appellant No. 1's cousin. In that case, the police had filed a charge sheet, and proceedings under Section 82 of the Criminal Procedure Code were initiated due to the non-appearance of the accused persons.

According to the appellants, the 2024 FIR was a direct counter-blast to those proceedings.

What was the complainant's explanation for the delay?

Counsel for the complainant argued that she is a childless widow, around 80 years old, and could not be expected to have been sufficiently active or vigilant to pursue all available legal remedies at the relevant time.

It was therefore submitted that the Court should not hold the delay against her, even if the FIR filed in 2024 was assumed to be belated.

How did the Supreme Court deal with this explanation?

The Bench said the crucial question that required an answer was why the complainant did not initiate criminal proceedings for at least 23 years after she became aware of the alleged offences.

Court noted that while her age at the time of the 2024 FIR was a relevant consideration, it also highlighted the fact that she had already filed the civil suit in 2001 when she was approximately 55 years old.

Therefore, Court held that she was required to satisfactorily explain why no criminal proceedings were initiated during all those years.

The Bench further observed that the record showed she was being assisted by her brother, Nazakat Ali, and therefore could not entirely claim helplessness due to age.

What did the Court say about the pending disputes between the parties?

Court noted that an ex parte decree had been passed in the 2001 suit on April 1, 2015 because no evidence was led on behalf of the appellants.

It also recorded that appellant No. 1 had filed objections in the suit claiming that the plaintiff was not the real Khatoon Jahan but a different person altogether.

However, the Bench refrained from expressing any opinion on that issue because an application seeking recall of the ex parte decree is still pending.

"We defer from offering our views on the said aspect since the application for recall of the ex parte decree is still pending consideration and in case, we express an opinion, the same could influence the fate of the said application," Court said.

Final decision

Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court set aside the Allahabad High Court's order and quashed the FIR registered in 2024.

Court clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the various civil and criminal disputes still pending between the private parties.

Case Title: Nazibul Rahim Khan & Ors Vs State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr

Bench: Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and R Mahadevan

Date of Judgment: March 25, 2026