Nazibul Rahim Khan & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. 2026 INSC 619

The dispute is characterized by a chequered history involving multiple civil and criminal cases between the parties. Respondent No. 2 (Khatoon Jahan) filed a suit (O.S. No. 259 of 2001) for a permanent injunction and the cancellation of a Sale Deed dated 02.02.1996 and a Power of Attorney. She alleged the appellants conspired to use an impersonator to sell 13 acres of her land.

Appellant No. 1 filed FIR No. 378 of 2002, alleging that Respondent No. 2 was actually an impersonator of his deceased cousin’s widow (also named Khatoon Jahan) and had illegally sold land belonging to the estate.

The civil suit (O.S. No. 259 of 2001) was decreed ex parte in favor of Respondent No. 2 in 2015, though a recall application by the appellants remains pending. Various other suits and mutation applications were filed by both sides over two decades.

In March 2024, after over two decades of litigation, Respondent No. 2 lodged FIR No. 172 of 2024 against the appellants, alleging forgery of the Power of Attorney and her death certificate.

The appellants sought to quash this FIR and the subsequent chargesheet under Section 482 of the CrPC. The High Court of Allahabad dismissed their application on July 9, 2025, leading to this appeal.

Unexplained Inordinate Delay: The Court noted that Respondent No. 2 was fully aware of the alleged forged Power of Attorney and Sale Deed when she filed her civil suit in 2001. There was no satisfactory explanation for why she waited until 2024, roughly 23 years, to initiate criminal proceedings on the same facts.

Abuse of Process: The Court relied on S N Vijayalakshmi v. State of Karnataka 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1575 and held that while civil and criminal remedies can coexist, the Court emphasized there should not be an “unreasonable or inordinate gap” between them. Such a delay suggests the criminal case was a pressure tactic to force a settlement in the pending civil matters or the earlier FIRs filed by the appellants.

Lacking Bona Fides: The Court rejected the argument that Respondent No. 2’s age (80) and status as a widow justified the delay, noting she was approximately 55 when the litigation began and had been consistently assisted by her brother in legal proceedings.

Nature of Litigants: The Court stated that chagrined and frustrated litigants should not be permitted to use the criminal justice system as a weapon of harassment or to give vent to their frustrations after failing to secure quick relief in civil courts.