A criminal case launched more than two decades after a civil dispute was first taken to court cannot be allowed to proceed without a convincing explanation for the delay, the Supreme Court has ruled while quashing an FIR linked to a property conflict.
The ruling came in a case where the complainant had challenged a property transaction through a civil suit in 2001, alleging that a forged power of attorney had been used to execute the sale of her land. However, criminal proceedings based on the same allegations were initiated only in 2024.
A Bench comprising Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and R. Mahadevan observed that Indian law permits civil and criminal proceedings to coexist when they arise from the same set of facts. Yet, the Court stressed that a person seeking both remedies cannot leave an extraordinary gap between invoking them.
According to the Bench, while parallel civil and criminal actions are legally maintainable, an unexplained and excessive delay in setting the criminal law in motion may itself become a ground for judicial intervention.
The judges noted that the complainant was fully aware of the allegations regarding the allegedly forged power of attorney when she filed the civil suit in 2001. In such circumstances, the Court found it difficult to understand why criminal proceedings were not initiated at that time or shortly thereafter.
The Court pointed out that the allegations made in the FIR were substantially the same as those raised in the civil litigation. It therefore held that the complainant was required to provide a satisfactory explanation for waiting nearly 23 years before approaching the criminal justice system. No such explanation was forthcoming.
Rejecting the argument that criminal proceedings can be initiated at any time merely because no specific limitation period applied in the case, the Bench held that courts must examine whether the delay is reasonable and whether the criminal process is being used for a legitimate purpose.
The judgment drew support from the Supreme Court’s earlier ruling in Kishan Singh v. Gurpal Singh, which warned against attempts to convert civil disputes into criminal battles after prolonged delays. That decision had emphasised that unexplained delay in filing an FIR can seriously undermine the prosecution’s case and may indicate an ulterior motive.
Reiterating those concerns, the Court observed that unsuccessful litigants should not be permitted to use criminal proceedings as a tool of pressure, retaliation or harassment after failing to secure favourable outcomes elsewhere. Judicial forums, it said, must remain alert to efforts aimed at turning personal grievances into instruments of persecution.
Finding the delay wholly unexplained and unjustified, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the criminal proceedings pending against the appellants.
