Filing Of Second Complaint With Material Improvements Raises Doubts: Supreme Court Quashes FIR

The Supreme Court has observed that the registration of a subsequent criminal complaint with material improvements creates a doubt over the genuineness of the prosecution, warranting quashing of the proceedings.

A bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Vipul M Pancholi heard the case where the complainant had initially concealed an allegation of extortion against the Appellants; however, after seven months, another complaint was filed with improvements, wherein an allegation of extortion which were absent in the initial complaint surfaced in a subsequent complaint, and the same was registered as an FIR.

The dispute concerned Survey No. 157 at Village Panas, Surat, over which civil litigation had been pending since 2000. The complainant alleged that the accused had forged documents, cheated him of his property rights and attempted to extort ₹1.5 crore. However, the Supreme Court noted that during years of civil litigation, no allegations of extortion, criminal intimidation, forgery or conspiracy had been made before any court. It further observed that an earlier complaint lodged in May 2009 did not contain any allegation of extortion, and that such allegations surfaced for the first time only in the FIR registered on December 31, 2009.

The Gujarat High Court refused to quash the proceedings against the Appellants for the offences of forgery and cheating against the Appellants, leading them to file an appeal before the Supreme Court.

Setting aside the impugned order, the judgment authored by Justice Pancholi observed:

“…the allegation of extortion, which is one of the grave accusations in the FIR, was absent in the first complaint and surfaced only subsequently. Thus, such material improvements cannot be ignored while examining whether the criminal process is being abused or not.”

“…where delay is coupled with circumstances creating serious doubt about the genuineness of the prosecution, the proceedings may warrant quashing.”, the court added, referencing Mohd. Wajid v. State of U.P., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 624.

“The High Court in the impugned judgment, despite noting down this sequence of events, failed to examine the legal effect of suppression of the earlier complaint and the material improvement introduced in the subsequent impugned FIR. In our view, the subsequent introduction of allegations of extortion, demand of money and intimidation in the second complaint materially alters the nature and complexion of the dispute and supports the contention of the appellants that the criminal proceedings are an afterthought intended to give criminal colour to a longstanding civil dispute. Though respondent No. 2 contended that the subsequent FIR merely elaborated upon earlier allegations, we find that the allegation of extortion, which is one of the grave accusations in the FIR, was absent in the first complaint and surfaced only subsequently. Thus, such material improvements cannot be ignored while examining whether the criminal process is being abused or not.”, the court observed.

In terms of the aforesaid, the appeal was allowed, and pending criminal proceedings stands quashed.

Cause Title: BHIKHUBHAI GOVINDBHAI PATEL & ANR. VERSUS THE STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 593

Click here to download judgment

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Nachiketa Joshi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Aniket Seth, Adv. Mr. Sai Shashank, Adv. Ms. Sucheta Joshi, Adv. Mr. Rushabh Kapadia, Adv. Mr. Vishal Arun Mishra, AOR Mr. Nachiketa Joshi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sucheta Joshi, Adv. Mr. Sai Shashank V, Adv. Mr. Karishma Rajput, Adv. Ms. Sagarika Arya, Adv. Mr. Mohit Joshi, Adv. Mr. Ayush Anand, AOR

For Respondent(s) : Ms. Swati Ghildiyal, AOR Ms. Sonakshi Sinha, Adv. Mr. Dhaval D Vyas, Sr. Adv. Mr. Chanchal Kumar Ganguli, AOR Ms. Suruchi Suri, Adv. Mr. Pratyush Jagirdar, Adv.