These batch of appeals by special leave related to disputes arising out of development of a residential layout and involved common accused persons, interconnected transactions and identical issues concerning the scope of interference by the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“CrPC”). Though each complaint contained certain individual-specific allegations with reference to distinct plot numbers and instances of criminal intimidation, etc. the gravamen of accusations was identical i.e. alleged creation of forged General Powers of Attorney, execution of sale deeds, and subsequent confirmation deeds in respect of the same survey land.

Complaints were submitted to the jurisdictional police stations that declined to entertain the same, upon which private complaints were presented before the relevant Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate who by an order exercised powers under s.156(3) of CrPC and directed that the complaints be forwarded to the jurisdictional police for registration of an FIR and investigation in accordance with law. FIRs were registered by the jurisdictional police stations. Aggrieved by proceedings emanating from the FIRs, quashing petitions were filed in the high court u/s.482 CrPC that were allowed opining that the identity of the land and the question of overlap between the rival claims constituted seriously disputed questions of fact requiring adjudication by a competent civil court. Thus, this batch of appeals.

The core question which arose for consideration was whether in the peculiar facts of the case, the high court was justified in exercising jurisdiction u/s.482 CrPC to quash the complaints and FIRs at a stage when the Magistrate had merely directed investigation u/s.156(3) CrPC.

A 2-Judges Bench of the Supreme Court observed that allegations involved not only physical acts of trespass and destruction, but also fraud, fabrication of documents and unlawful interference with property rights. The Bench observed that “the dispute between the parties is predominantly civil in nature and that criminal proceedings could not be sustained unless the registered sale deeds were first cancelled by resorting to proceedings under Section 31 of SRA” [Specific Relief Act, 1963].

The Bench held –

“52. In the present set of appeals, the proceedings were at a nascent stage. The Magistrate had merely exercised jurisdiction under Section 156(3) of CrPC and directed investigation by the police. It cannot be gainsaid that while exercising jurisdiction under Section 156(3) of CrPC, the Magistrate is required to merely peruse the application filed by the complainant and examine whether the facts disclosed therein prima facie disclose the necessary ingredients of cognizable offences requiring investigation by police. The Magistrate is not expected to undertake an exhaustive evaluation of evidence nor adjudicate upon the merits of the allegations. If the Magistrate arrives at the conclusion that prima facie a cognizable offence is disclosed, then he would be fully justified in directing the concerned SHO to register an FIR and proceed with investigation in accordance with law. The High Court, while exercising its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of CrPC, must remain circumspect in interfering with such an exercise of power and ought to intervene only where it is evident that the order lacks any legal foundation; suffers from perversity or that the same may result in failure of justice.

53. In such circumstances, the High Court, while exercising its inherent jurisdiction, should not travel beyond the allegations contained in the complaint and the material placed by the complainant by delving into the defences sought to be projected by the accused-respondents.

…

55. This Court has, time and again, emphasised that criminal investigation ought not to be scuttled at the threshold except in cases where the complaint ex facie does not disclose the commission of any cognizable offence or where continuation of the proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law. The power of the High Court under Section 482 of CrPC or Article 226 of the Constitution of India to interdict investigation is to be exercised with great circumspection, bearing in mind the statutory duty of the investigating agency to inquire into cognizable offences. The said position has been eruditely explained by this Court in Neeharika Infrastructure (P) Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, (2021) 19 SCC 401…”

The appeals were allowed, orders passed by the high court were set aside and the FIRs and the proceedings arising therefrom were revived and restored to the file of the concerned police stations and/or Magistrate, for being proceeded in accordance with law, holding –

            “56. …it was not at all justified for the High Court to have quashed proceedings merely on the ground that the dispute appeared to be civil in nature. It is well settled that the mere existence of a civil remedy does not by itself bar criminal proceedings where the allegations prima facie disclose commission of a cognizable offence. By entering into an evaluation of the dispute on merits and proceeding to quash the order directing investigation, the High Court effectively stifled the investigative process at its inception. Such an approach runs contrary to the principles consistently laid down by this Court.”