Supreme Court: Civil and Criminal Remedies Can Co-Exist, But Inordinate Delay in Invoking Criminal Law May Be Fatal

Case: Nazibul Rahim Khan & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.

Court: Supreme Court of India

Date: 25 March 2026

Coram: Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice R. Mahadevan

Brief Facts

The dispute related to agricultural land and allegations of impersonation, forged power of attorney, and fraudulent sale deeds. The complainant had already instituted a civil suit in 2001 challenging the alleged transactions and claiming that her land had been transferred through forged documents. Despite having knowledge of the alleged fraud since 2001, she lodged a criminal FIR only in 2024 alleging offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 506 IPC. The accused contended that the FIR was a counterblast to earlier proceedings initiated by them and was filed after an unexplained delay of more than two decades.

Issue

Whether criminal proceedings can be permitted to continue when the complainant had knowledge of the alleged wrongdoing for over twenty years and had already pursued civil remedies on the same cause of action.

Supreme Court's Findings

The Supreme Court reiterated that civil and criminal proceedings can simultaneously proceed on the same set of facts. However, where a party chooses to invoke criminal jurisdiction after an unreasonable and unexplained delay, the Court must carefully examine whether the criminal process is being used bona fide or merely as a pressure tactic in an ongoing civil dispute.

The Court found that the complainant had admittedly raised allegations of forged power of attorney and fraudulent sale deeds in civil proceedings as early as 2001. Therefore, the filing of an FIR in 2024, after approximately 23 years, required a satisfactory explanation, which was absent.

Relying upon the principles laid down in Kishan Singh v. Gurpal Singh and other precedents, the Court observed that delayed criminal proceedings arising out of long-standing civil disputes may amount to an abuse of the process of law, particularly when they appear intended to harass the opposite party or gain leverage in civil litigation.

Ratio Decidendi

Although civil and criminal remedies may coexist and be pursued simultaneously on the same cause of action, an aggrieved party seeking to invoke criminal law after having already initiated civil proceedings must do so within a reasonable time. An unexplained and inordinate delay in lodging criminal proceedings may indicate mala fides, abuse of process, or use of criminal law as a pressure tactic, warranting quashing of the proceedings.

Decision

Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench), quashed FIR No. 172 of 2024 and all consequential proceedings, while clarifying that it had expressed no opinion on the merits of the pending civil disputes between the parties.

Key Takeaway

This judgment is a significant reminder that while the law permits parallel civil and criminal remedies, criminal prosecution cannot be invoked after decades of silence without a convincing explanation. Courts will closely scrutinize delayed criminal complaints arising from civil disputes to prevent misuse of the criminal justice system as a tool of coercion or retaliation.

Prepared by: Sajjad Husain Law Associates

Practice Area: Criminal Law | Civil Litigation | Quashing of FIR | Abuse of Process of Court.

Cause Title: NAZIBUL RAHIM KHAN & ORS. VERSUS STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.

fined judgement https://t.me/sajjadhusainlaw/356

Official Website of Supreme Court https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2025/41356/41356_2025_13_16_69638_Order_25-Mar-2026.pdf

https://youtube.com/shorts/r7FqVWVrtsc