Challenge against a High Court order refusing to quash a supplementary FIR that arrayed the appellant as an accused in a property dispute, despite a lack of new evidence or criminal elements.
Appeal Allowed. The Supreme Court quashed FIR No. 588 dated June 2, 2018, specifically regarding the appellant, ruling that criminal proceedings cannot be used as an instrument to leverage a purely civil property dispute.
1. Introduction and High Court Ruling
The appellant filed a criminal appeal before the Supreme Court challenging a common order passed by the High Court. The High Court had declined to grant relief or quash FIR No. 588 dated June 2, 2018, which was registered at the Faridabad Central Police Station. The High Court had reasoned that even though a civil suit was already pending and the dispute primarily concerned land boundaries, the criminal allegations could not be ignored because the accused persons were alleged to have knowingly executed forged General Power of Attorneys (GPAs) for land that had already been partially transferred to the State of Uttar Pradesh.
2. The Prosecution and Supplementary FIR
The initial FIR explicitly mentioned the name of the appellant, Sunisha Anand, but did not array her as an accused party. However, through a supplementary FIR (Annexure P10), the police subsequently arrayed the appellant as an accused.
The Additional Attorney General for the State of Haryana argued that the appellant’s criminal role was unmasked during the regular course of investigation, justifying her subsequent inclusion. Conversely, Senior Counsel Sri Siddharth Luthra, representing the appellant, countered that the supplementary report was added without any fresh material or evidence being unearthed by the police. He relied upon the Supreme Court precedent in Mariam Fasihuddin & Anr. v. State by Adugodi Police Station & Anr., which explicitly frowned upon filing supplementary reports in the absolute absence of new, independent evidence.
3. Factual Matrix and Core Allegations
The background of the dispute indicates that the appellant is the daughter of Onkar Singh and Mohinder Kaur, who were the original titleholders of the disputed land. Following her father’s demise, the appellant obtained partial rights over the property through legal succession.
The de-facto complainant (the second respondent), who claims to be in physical possession of a portion of the land, filed the complaint. The core allegations leveled in both the first and the supplementary FIR were that:
- The appellant’s mother executed and registered “fake” GPAs.
- On the strength of these GPAs, lands were transferred to co-accused individuals (Pratap Singh and Prem Pal), who then executed further commercial conveyances.
- The appellant and her mother did not hold a clean title over the entire property because a portion of the land had already been divested and transferred to the Government.
- The subsequent sale deeds incorrectly referenced a jamabandi (land revenue record) that did not exist in reality.
4. Supreme Court’s Evaluation and Findings
The Supreme Court closely evaluated the evidentiary record and exposed the lack of substance in the criminal case against the appellant:
- The Authenticity of the GPAs: The Court noted that since the prosecution itself asserted that the GPAs were physically executed by the mother and the daughter (the appellant), it was logically incomprehensible to brand the documents as “fake” or “fraudulent”.
- Absence of Culpability Towards the Complainant: The Apex Court observed that even if the vendors had mistakenly or intentionally sold more land than they actually held title to, or if a non-existent jamabandi was mentioned in the sale deeds, such grievances belong strictly to the purchasers of the property. A third-party occupier cannot convert these contractual mismatches into a criminal offense.
- Lack of New Evidence: The Court verified that the supplementary FIR merely repeated the exact same allegations as the first FIR and failed to unearth any new evidence connecting the appellant to a cognizable crime.
5. Conclusion and Order
The Supreme Court reiterated a settled tenet of criminal jurisprudence: criminal law machinery cannot be weaponized or exploited to advance a party’s position in a purely civil dispute. Noting that a civil suit initiated by the de-facto complainant was already active, the Court found absolutely no trace of criminality against the appellant.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and officially quashed FIR No. 588 dated June 2, 2018 (Annexure P10) registered at Faridabad Central Police Station, strictly as it applied to the appellant, Sunisha Anand.
2026 INSC 494
Sunisha Anand V. State of Haryana & Anr. (D.O.J. 11.05.2026)
