Civil and criminal cases possible on same facts but not after inordinate delay: Supreme Court

Court quashes 2024 FIR lodged by an 80-year-old woman, noting that she had full knowledge of the alleged forgery since 2001 when she filed a civil suit but waited over two decades to approach the police.

New Delhi: The Supreme Court has ruled that while both civil and criminal proceedings can be initiated on the same set of facts, but an aggrieved person cannot resort to criminal remedies after an unreasonable or inordinate delay as it may indicate mala fide intent or abuse of the legal process.

A bench of Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and R Mahadevan made the observation while quashing a 2024 FIR lodged by an 80-year-old woman, noting that she had full knowledge of the alleged forgery since 2001 when she filed a civil suit but waited over two decades to approach the police.

The court emphasised that initiating a civil suit suggests the matter involves civil elements requiring a full trial based on evidence. While this does not bar subsequent criminal proceedings, the significant time gap must be satisfactorily explained, failing which it could be seen as a pressure tactic rather than a genuine invocation of criminal law.

“In such situations, the court will have to minutely and mindfully consider the whole factual gamut and then draw its conclusions,” the bench observed.

The ruling came on an appeal by Nazibul Rahim Khan and others challenging the Allahabad High Court’s July 9, 2025 order refusing to quash the FIR and chargesheet filed against them by Khatoon Jahan.

According to the case details, Khatoon Jahan had filed a civil suit in 2001 seeking permanent injunction and cancellation of a 1996 sale deed and power of attorney. 

She alleged that the appellants had conspired and used an impersonator to execute the sale deed for 13 acres of land through forged documents.

Despite having knowledge of the alleged offences since 2001, she filed the criminal complaint only in 2024 on the same set of facts. 

The appellants contended that the belated FIR was a counter-blast to exert pressure on them in the ongoing civil disputes, including their recall application against an ex parte decree and other cases they had filed against her.

The court noted that the complainant, who was around 55 years old when she filed the civil suit, could not claim helplessness, especially as she was assisted by her brother in the proceedings. 

The bench rejected the argument that her advanced age justified the 23-year delay.

The court also took note of the litigative history between the parties, including an FIR filed by the appellants in 2002 against the respondent.

“Upon the same cause of action and based on the same set of facts/circumstances, both civil and criminal proceedings can be maintainable,” the bench said, referring to an earlier judgment.

“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,” the bench added.

The court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court order, and quashed the 2024 FIR and all consequential proceedings. It clarified that it has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the pending civil disputes between the parties.