Supreme Court revives FIR and directs investigation into alleged fraud in high-value Delhi property transaction

A bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Manmohan heard the criminal appeal challenging a Delhi High Court order that had quashed FIR No.94/2022 filed at the Economic Offences Wing, Mandir Marg. The appeal arose from SLP (Crl.) No.11042 of 2022 and questioned whether cognizable offences under Sections 467, 468, 471, 420 and 120B IPC were prima facie made out against two respondents who had been held to be merely witnesses by the High Court.

The Supreme Court set aside the Single Judge’s quashing order dated 17 October 2022 and revived the FIR insofar as it related to Vikramjit Singh and Maheep Singh, holding that the allegations, if taken at face value at this nascent stage, disclosed cognizable offences and warranted investigation. The Court emphasised that “mere institution of civil proceedings is not a ground for quashing the FIR” and that the power to quash must be exercised “sparingly with circumspection.” The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “Police has the statutory right and duty under the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure contained in Chapter XIV of the Code to investigate into a cognizable offence. Courts would not thwart any investigation into the cognizable offences. It is only in cases where no cognizable offence or offence of any kind is disclosed in the first information report that the Court will not permit an investigation to go on.” The Court further recorded that “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.”

Background The dispute concerned a Receipt-cum-Agreement to Sell dated 12 April 2004 for a prime Delhi property at 28-A, Prithvi Raj Road, for Rs. 28 crore. The appellant, Punit Beriwala, alleged that he paid Rs.1,64,50,000 between April 2004 and January 2005 pursuant to that agreement and that the document falsely represented that Bhai Manjit Singh acted as Karta of the HUF and that the property was free from encumbrances. The receipt bore signatures of the seller and was witnessed by Vikramjit Singh and Maheep Singh. The appellant alleged possession given was only “paper possession.”

Over the years the accused allegedly told the appellant that conversion and clearance of encumbrances were in progress. A public notice by the appellant in July 2020 prompted bank responses disclosing earlier mortgages, and a later certified sale deed dated 2 December 2021 showed the property sold to J.K. Paper Limited and recorded Vikramjit Singh as Karta. The appellant filed a civil suit for specific performance (CS(OS) No.598/2021) and later lodged a complaint with the Economic Offences Wing on 12 January 2022, leading to registration of FIR on 16 June 2022. The Delhi High Court quashed the FIR against Vikramjit and Maheep, but this Court found that, on the averments, they had allegedly permitted a misrepresentation at the inception by allowing Bhai Manjit Singh to represent himself as Karta despite knowledge to the contrary, and had executed/made documents or witnessed receipts that induced the appellant to part with money.

The Supreme Court reviewed settled principles — including that civil remedies did not preclude criminal investigation, that the court should not weigh merits at the quashing stage, and that delay alone was not fatal where offences attract more than three years’ imprisonment — and noted the existence of cross-FIRs and contradictory stands by accused which required comprehensive investigation. The Court clarified that its findings on quashing were limited to the stage of deciding the petition and “shall not bind the Courts below while deciding the matter.” The appeal was disposed of by reviving FIR No.94/2022 against Respondent Nos.2 and 3.

Case Details: Case No.: Criminal Appeal No.1834 of 2025 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.11042 of 2022) — Citation: 2025 INSC 582 Case Title: Punit Beriwala v. The State of NCT of Delhi and Ors. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Ms. Mukta Gupta, Senior Counsel For the Respondent(s): Mr. Shyam Divan, Senior Counsel (for Respondent No.2); Ms. Archana Pathak Dave, Additional Solicitor General (for State/Respondent No.1)