CASE NAME: Nazibul Rahim Khan v. State of Uttar Pradesh
CASE NUMBER: SLP (Cr.) No. 12517 of 2025
COURT: Allahabad High Court
DATE: 25 March 2026
QUORUM: Hon’ble Justice Ahsauddin Amanullah and Hon’ble Justice Mahadevan
FACTS
The conflict is over a 13 acre plot of land in Lakhimpur Kheri, Uttar Pradesh, which is being used for farming. No. 2, Khatoon Jahan, was the Respondent in the case of Civil Suit O.S. No. 259/2001, which is a complaint filed by Appellant Nos. Both 1 and 2 (Nazibul Rahim Khan and Javed Khan of Bhullan) in conspiracy executed a fraudulent Sale Deed dated 02.02.1996 on the land of Respondent No.2, who was the impersonator of Appellant No.3 (Ajara Kulsum). Respondent No. 2, in turn, had filed FIR No. 378 of 2002, claiming that it was she who was the impersonator and who had impersonated herself as another Khatoon Jahan (the widow of his cousin) to hawk land for sale on her behalf. Respondent No. 2 was charged in 2003 and was not brought before the court although she had been issued with a summons and an arrest warrant, the court proceeded with the proclamation under Section 82 CrPC in 2024. In March, 2024, Respondent No.2, who was same as the complainant in 2001, filed FIR No.172 of 2024 against the appellants, essentially raising similar complaints as made in 2001. A chargesheet was filed and the Trial Court took cognizance on 09.08.2024. The appellants approached the High Court for quashing which was rejected and hence the present appeal before the Supreme Court.
ISSUES
- Whether the FIR No. 172 of 2024 is an abuse of process, which was filed around 23 years after the civil suit, which raised similar allegations?
- The facts of the case are that the Supreme Court of India was made aware that 2-3 months of inordinate and unexplained delay had occurred.
- Can an FIR become a counter-blast/pressure tool, if criminal proceedings are instituted based on facts known at the time of filing a civil suit?
LEGAL PROVISIONS
- Section 482 CrPC (Now 528 of the BNSS, 2023)
- Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC (Now 318, 338, 336, 340 of BNS, 2023 Respectively)
- Section 82 CrPC (Now Section 84 of the BNSS, 2023)
ARGUMENTS
PETITIONER:
The FIR was filed with mala fide intent as Respondent No.2 was completely aware of the alleged fraud since 2001 and the delay of 23 years was inexplicable. The FIR was an obvious counter-blast that was aimed at forcing the appellants to withdraw their application for recall of the decree and their own FIR against Respondent No. 2. Reliance was made on State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (AIR 1992 SC 604), Mohammad Wajid v. State of UP (2023 INSC 683) and Eastern Spinning Mills v. Rajiv Poddar (AIR 1985 SC 1668) to urge the Court to go beyond the appearance of the FIR in light of the surrounding circumstances and the facts.
RESPONDENT:
Statutory limit to filing criminal complaints doesn’t exist. Respondent No. 2 is an 80 year old widow without a child who cannot be required to live up to the standard of care that can be expected of an active parent. The High Court set out to adhere to the correct approach in CBI v Aryan Singh (2023) 18 SCC 399 and held that it is not the role of the High Court to hold a mini-trial under Section 482 and defence submissions should be heard during trial.
ANALYSIS
The Supreme Court found an important difference between the lack of a limitation period in criminal law and the importance of delay in evidence. Although there is no statute of limitation to file an FIR after the commission of an offence, if there is a lapse between the commission of an alleged offence and initiation of criminal action, it is a strong indication of mala fides. The Court said that, if a party is aggrieved, he or she should first assert the civil remedy, thus recognize that there are civil aspects to the dispute, and then, after some unreasonable or inordinate delay, assert criminal law. It is only when both remedies are used at the same time, or nearly simultaneously, that it is allowed, or 23 years later without explanation, it is not. Importantly, the Court found that Respondent No. 2’s helplessness and age were not justifications for the delay. Record indicated that she had been assisted at all times by her brother (PW-2) and was actively pursuing civil actions. The time of the FIR, which was lodged “simultaneously” with the proceedings under Section 82 CrPC, in the previous case, pointed towards a vested interest. In the case of Kishan Singh v. Gurpal Singh (2010) 8 SCC 775, the Court reiterated that the courts must look into the entire factual context when considering a Section 482 petition, as the purposes of the procedure should not be reduced to “hosting” litigants who are frustrated.
JUDGEMENT
The Supreme Court in the Criminal Appeal Nos. 249/2024 and 250/2024, presided over by Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and R. Mahadevan, upheld the Criminal Appeal, quashed the FIR No. 172 of 2024 and the subsequent orders, such as the chargesheet dated 03.05.2024 and the cognizance order dated 09.08.2024, issued by the Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench).
The Court was sensitive to the fact that it was not commenting on the still pending civil and criminal actions between the parties. All other courts that dealt with these issues were ordered to act separately and not subject to the sway of this order.
CONCLUSION
In this judgment, the court has reiterated the principle that inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC have to be invoked to keep Criminal Law from being used as an instrument of harassment. Where the FIR is filed after the knowledge of the facts and circumstances in question and the proceedings under it have been pending for a long time without any justification and have not been explained in the application, it is a strong reason to quash the FIR, particularly if it is filed in the time of bad news in the parallel proceedings before courts for the complainant, the decision concludes. The case is instructive when considering the principle that courts have to look at the overall nature of the case, the history of litigation and the motive of the parties and not restrict themselves to the face of the allegations when entertaining quashing petitions in a dispute of a civil-criminal nature.
“PRIME LEGAL is a National Award-winning law firm with over two decades of experience across diverse legal sectors. We are dedicated to setting the standard for legal excellence in civil, criminal, and family law.”
WRITTEN BY : ARNAV NAIK
Read the judgement copy below:
NAZIBUL RAHIM KHAN & ORS. VERSUS STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.
