Civil & Criminal Remedies Can Be Invoked For Same Cause, But There Shouldn't Be Inordinate Time Gap Between Them: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court recently held that an unreasonable and inordinate delay in registering the FIR, after institution of a civil suit on the same set of facts/circumstances, can justify the quashing of the criminal proceedings.

“…it is important to indicate that it is no longer res integra that upon the same cause of action and based on the same set of facts/circumstances, both civil and criminal proceedings can be maintainable. However, if the aggrieved person wishes to invoke civil as also criminal remedies, there should not be an unreasonable or inordinate gap between instituting the two.”, observed a bench of Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice R. Mahadevan, while quashing a criminal proceeding registered by the Respondent No.2 against the Appellant, after 23 years of the filing of the civil suit.

The Court was not persuaded by the Respondent No.2-complainant's submission that there exists no limitation period for initiating criminal proceedings. The Court questioned that when the complainant instituted the civil suit in 2001 disputing the role of the Appellant in the power of attorney to execute the sale deed of her land, then what precluded her from not registering the FIR immediately within few days of the institution of the civil suit, and why did she waited for 23 years to register the FIR only in 2024, on the same set of facts/allegations, on which the civil suit was instituted.

“The undisputed fact is that respondent no.2 had alleged creation of a forged Power of Attorney and use thereof by the appellants in executing Sale Deed in a suit filed by her way back in the year 2001. It is also an admitted position that these are the allegations in FIR…filed by respondent no.2 against the appellants. Thus, the stark question which requires to be satisfactorily answered by respondent no.2 in the present case is as to why she did not institute criminal proceedings for about 23 years, at the minimum, from the date on which such alleged crime came to her knowledge.”, the Court observed.

The Court also relied upon Kishan Singh v Gurpal Singh, (2010) 8 SCC 775, where it cautioned against the criminalisation of the civil dispute out of vengeance by filing an FIR with a long unexplained delay. The Court therein held that “a delay in lodging an FIR, the court has to look for a plausible explanation for such delay. In the absence of such an explanation, the delay may be fatal.”

“…court should carefully examine the facts before it for the reason that a frustrated litigant who failed to succeed before the civil court may initiate criminal proceedings just to harass the other side with mala fide intentions or the ulterior motive of wreaking vengeance on the other party. Chagrined and frustrated litigants should not be permitted to give vent to their frustrations by cheaply invoking the jurisdiction of the criminal court. The court proceedings ought not to be permitted to degenerate into a weapon of harassment and persecution.”, the court observed in Kishan Singh (Supra).

Resultantly, the appeal was allowed, and the pending criminal proceedings against the Appellant was quashed.

Cause Title: NAZIBUL RAHIM KHAN & ORS. VERSUS STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 608

Click here to download judgment

Appearance:

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Abhishek Usha Singh, Adv. Ms. Deeksha Saggi, Adv. Mr. Rituparn Uniyal, AOR

For Respondent(s) :Mr. Shaurya Sahay, AOR Mr. Aman Jaiswal, Adv. Mr. Ashish Singh, Adv. Ms. Sharvi Sharma, Adv. Mr. Syed Tamjeed Ahmed, Adv. Mr. Mohd. Saquib Siddiqui, AOR Ms. Shanyan Yameen, Adv. Mr. Bilal Mansoor, Adv. Ms. Priyanka Singh, Adv. Mr. Manu Nagar, Adv. Mr. Abdul Samad Siddiqui, Adv. Ms. Srishti Kasana, Adv.