Whether criminal proceedings can be sustained against a subsequent successional landholder for alleged forgery and over-conveyance of land title, when the underlying dispute is essentially civil and no new evidence was unearthed during a supplementary investigation.
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, quashing FIR No. 588 and all consequential criminal proceedings against the appellant, ruling that criminal law cannot be weaponized to resolve purely civil property disputes.
1. Introduction and Procedural History
The appellant, Sunisha Anand, filed an appeal against a common order passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. The High Court had refused to quash FIR No. 588 (dated June 2, 2018), registered at the Faridabad Central Police Station. The High Court had declined relief under the premise that although the dispute primarily involved land and a pending civil suit, criminal elements were visible because the accused supposedly prepared and executed forged General Power of Attorneys (GPAs) for land that included portions already transferred to the State of Uttar Pradesh.
2. Arguments Advanced by the Parties
- For the Appellant: Senior Counsel Sri Siddharth Luthra highlighted that while the appellant’s name appeared in the primary narrative of the first FIR, she was not initially arrayed as an accused. She was only formally added later through a supplementary FIR/report, despite the fact that investigation had unearthed no new incriminatory material. The defense relied on Mariam Fasihuddin v. State by Adugodi Police Station, which restricts the validity of filing supplementary reports without new evidence.
- For the State: Sri Abhinav Bajaj, Additional Attorney General for Haryana, countered that regular investigation had properly disclosed the appellant’s precise role in the offense, which justified her subsequent arrayal as an accused.
3. Factual Background of the Allegations
The case involved property originally held by the appellant’s parents, Onkar Singh and Mohinder Kaur. Following her father’s death, the appellant acquired rights over the property through succession.
The de-facto complainant (Respondent No. 2), who claimed to be in physical possession of the disputed land, alleged that the appellant’s mother executed fake GPAs. On the strength of these documents, property was transferred to co-accused individuals (Pratap Singh and Prem Pal) who executed further conveyances. The central allegation was that the family did not possess valid title over the entirety of the transacted land, as a portion had already been divested to the Government, and that the sale deeds referenced a non-existent jamabandi (land revenue record).
4. Key Findings and Observations of the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court analyzed the material records and heavily disagreed with the High Court’s assessment, identifying several fundamental flaws in the prosecution’s logic:
- Absence of Forgery or Fake Documents: The Court observed that since the prosecution itself stated that the GPAs were physically executed by the mother and daughter (the actual title holders), the documents could not logically be branded as “fake” or “forged” templates.
- Civil Over-Conveyance vs. Criminal Liability: The Court noted that even if a vendor mistakenly or intentionally includes references to an incorrect jamabandi, or purports to sell more land area than they actually hold title to, such actions do not automatically give rise to criminal liability. If an allegation of cheating or misrepresentation were to be made, it must logically come from the defrauded purchasers, not from a third-party occupant like the complainant.
- Misuse of Criminal Machinery: The apex court emphasized that the de-facto complainant was already pursuing a civil suit over the property. It firmly reiterated the judicial principle that the coercive machinery of criminal law cannot be exploited to gain leverage or advance a party’s stance in an essentially civil litigation.
5. Conclusion and Directions
The Supreme Court concluded that no prima facie case of criminality was made out against the appellant from the facts disclosed in the FIR. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal and quashed FIR No. 588 dated June 2, 2018, along with all consequential proceedings arising out of it, specifically as they concerned the appellant.
2026 INSC 530
Sunisha Anand V. State of Haryana & Anr. (D.O.J. 11.05.2026)
