LexPUNIT BERIWALA versus THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 2421 : 2025 INSC 582 Punit Beriwala v. The State of NCT of Delhi and Ors. (Criminal Appeal No. 1834 of 2025) 29 April 2025 [Dipankar Datta and Manmohan,* JJ.] Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court was justified in quashing the subject FIR against Respondent Nos.2 and 3 and whether a cognizable offence against them is prima facie made out from a reading of the subject complaint. Headnotes† Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.482 – Penal Code, 1860 – ss.467 468, 471, 420, 120B – Cross-FIRs filed – Subject FIR registered by the appellant against the accused persons, quashed qua the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 – Interference with: Held: Impugned judgment set aside – Power of quashing of a complaint/FIR should be exercised sparingly with circumspection – Mere institution of civil proceedings is not a ground for quashing the FIR or to hold that the dispute is merely a civil dispute – Only because the offence was committed during a commercial transaction, it would not be sufficient to hold that the complaint did not warrant a further investigation and if necessary, a trial – As per the allegation in the complaint/FIR, right from the inception of the transaction between the parties, the Appellant was misrepresented, defrauded, deceived with dishonest and fraudulent intent by Respondent Nos.2 and 3 – As per the complaint/FIR, there was misrepresentation by Respondent Nos.2 and 3 right from the inception – All accused persons acted in conspiracy to deceive and cheat the Appellant with no intention of selling the subject property to the Appellant and by misrepresentation and deception they entered into multiple transactions w.r.t the subject property – FIR/complaint reveals commission of cognizable offences by the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 – Furthermore, in view of the contradictory defences of the accused as well as the registration and pendency of the cross FIRs, the High Court should not have limited the scope * Author 2422 [2025] 4 S.C.R. Supreme Court Reports of investigation – Impugned judgment set aside – FIR against respondent nos. 2 and 3 revived. [Paras 28, 29, 31, 35, 39, 43, 46] Criminal Law – Cross FIRs – Need for holistic investigation: Held: Cross FIRs are to be holistically investigated – In cases involving cross-FIRs, it would be prudent and fair if the investigation is carried out in a comprehensive manner – The object of the investigation is the discovery of truth – In the present case, in view of cross-FIRs, the investigating authority will conclude that either the receipts in favour of the appellant are forged and fabricated or that the receipts are genuine – Complicity of the respondent nos. 2 and 3 can only be ascertained once the investigation is permitted to reach its logical conclusion. [Para 45] Agreement to Sell – Agreement to Sell in question if a Contract/ Agreement to Sell – Specific performance thereof, if can be sought: Held: Yes – Plea that the agreement to Sell in question is not a written but an oral Agreement is contrary to facts and untenable in law – The Delhi High Court whose judgments bind the parties has repeatedly treated receipts, like the receipt dated 12.04.2004, as a Contract/Agreement to Sell whose specific performance can be sought. [Para 27] Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.482 – Exercise of power: Held: Power of quashing of a complaint/FIR should be exercised sparingly with circumspection – While exercising this power, the Court must believe the averments and allegations in the complaint to be true and correct – Save in exceptional cases where non- interference would result in miscarriage of justice, the Court and the judicial process should not interfere at the stage of investigation of offences – Extraordinary and inherent powers of the Court should not be used in a routine manner according to whims or caprice. [Para 29] Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – ss.482, 468, 469 – Penal Code, 1860 – ss.467 468, 471, 420, 120B – Quashing of FIR on ground of delay – When not proper: Held: Delay in registration of the FIR for offences punishable with imprisonment of more than three years cannot be the basis of interdicting a criminal investigation – Delay will assume importance only when the complainant fails to give a plausible explanation [2025] 4 S.C.R. 2423 Punit Beriwala v. The State of NCT of Delhi and Ors. and whether the explanation is plausible or not, has to be decided by the Trial Court only
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.