Case Name: Punit Beriwala v. The State of NCT of Delhi and Ors.
Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 1834 of 2025 (SLP (Crl.) No. 11042 of 2022)
Date of Judgment: 29 April 2025
Quorum: Justices Manmohan and Dipankar Datta
FACTUAL OF THE CASE
The case is raised from a difference in opinion between the sale of a prime plot at 28-A, Prithvi Raj Road, New Delhi. Punit Beriwala (the appellant) agreed upon a Receipt-cum-Agreement to Sell dated 12 April 2004 with Bhai Manjit Singh (on behalf of HUF Karta), Vikramjit Singh, and Maheep Singh (Respondent Nos. 2 and 3) on consideration of Rs. 28 crores. The agreement, as claimed by the appellant, was entered in his favor on the said plot.
From April 2004 to January 2005, the appellant made a part payment of more than Rs. 1.64 crores, which was received through several receipts, some of which were signed by Vikramjit and Maheep as witnesses. Although paper possession of the servant quarter was transferred, the appellant asserted no actual possession took place. After years, Beriwala found out that the property had been mortgaged and ultimately sold to a third party and their true identity was revealed to as the Karta from 2000. These revelations forced the appellant to lodge a complaint resulting in the FIR No. 94/2022, which has been subsequently quashed by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court. The current appeal is filed against the quashing order passed by the Hon’ble Delhi High court.
ISSUES
- Whether the High Court was right in quashing the FIR?
- Whether the allegations made in the FIR prima facie reveal the commission of cognizable offences involving investigation?
- Whether delay in lodging the complaint/FIR renders it non-maintainable?
LEGAL PROVISIONS
Sections 467, 468, 471, 420, and 120B, Indian Penal Code, 1860
Sections 482, 468, and 469, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
APPELLANT’S CONTENTIONS
The appellant contended that the learned Single Judge made an error in quashing the FIR on grounds of delay and the fact of simultaneous civil proceedings. He presented that the fraudulent intention of the respondents was revealed only after receiving the sale deed in December 2021, which revealed that the real Karta was Vikramjit Singh and that the property was already under mortgage. The FIR was therefore immediately registered in January 2022, subsequent to the discovery.
It was also contended that respondents 2 and 3 deliberately let Bhai Manjit Singh falsely impersonate Karta and assisted the transaction with their signatures. Sale and various mortgages after agreement were quoted as proof of continued conspiracy and fraudulent misrepresentation. The appellant also highlighted the changing stands adopted by the accused, such as a late FIR against him on charges of forged receipts.
RESPONDENTS’ CONTENTIONS
Respondent No. 2 contended that being a witness to a document does not invoke criminal liability. It was contended that the agreement was oral, there was no continuous follow-up for more than 16 years, and the appellant had accepted possession of the property. Respondent No. 3, who was a senior citizen, claimed minimal participation and said she only signed two receipts and was never a Karta or part of decision-making.
The State argued that the FIR had been inappropriately revoked at initial investigation stages and underlined the non-cooperation of the accused with the police process.
ANALYSIS
The Supreme Court reaffirmed that criminal and civil proceedings could coexist and that civil remedies do not bar investigation into cognizable offences. The FIR under consideration, read as a whole, did reveal prima facie offences of fraud and conspiracy.
It was highlighted that Respondents 2 and 3, due to their family relationship and fact that they realized Bhai Manjit Singh wasn’t the Karta, had knowingly facilitated misrepresentation. It was further illustrated through their act of participating actively in subsequent deals—mortgages and sale deeds.
The Court also observed that the delay on its own is not a reason to set aside an FIR, particularly where the cause of action arose out of newly discovered facts. The reason given by the appellant was held to be reasonable and within the provisions of limitation statute.
In addition, the Court noted that the High Court’s rationale on part-possession of the servant quarter was defective as the appellant never had effective possession, and comparable possession was subsequently extended to another purchaser, showing a repeated modus operandi.
JUDGMENT
The Supreme Court reserved the challenged Delhi High Court order and reinstated FIR No. 94/2022 against Vikramjit Singh and Maheep Singh. It ordered that the investigation be conducted without obstruction and made it clear that these conclusions were confined to the issue of quashing and would not pre-judge the final decision of the trial court.
CONCLUSION
This ruling upholds the doctrine that courts should not unnecessarily meddle with police investigations into serious cognizable offenses, particularly where prima facie fraud and conspiracy are involved. It emphasizes the necessity of a comprehensive inquiry before exoneration, especially where inconsistent tales and previous behavior indicate malafide intent. The judgment enhances jurisprudence relating to procedural fairness and necessity of judicial self-restraint in exercising quashing powers.
