Sunisha Anandv.State of Haryana & Anr

Legal Analysis: Sunisha Anand v. State of Haryana & Anr

Citation: 2026 INSC 494
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: A Division Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice K. Vinod Chandran
Date of Decision: May 11, 2026
Nature of Case: Criminal Appeal arising out of challenge to FIR No. 588 dated 02.06.2018 registered at Police Station, Faridabad Central

Synopsis

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal filed by Sunisha Anand, quashing the FIR against her. The appellant was not originally named as an accused in the first FIR but was subsequently arrayed through a supplementary report. The dispute pertained to execution of General Powers of Attorney (GPAs) and transfer of land, with a civil suit already pending. The Court held that execution of GPAs by a mother and daughter cannot be termed as “fake” or “fraudulent” simply because the vendors conveyed more property than they had title. Any grievance regarding excess conveyance lies with the purchasers, not with a third party claiming possession. The Court reiterated that criminal law cannot be used to further a purely civil dispute.

1. Basic Information of the Judgment

• Case Title: Sunisha Anand v. State of Haryana & Anr.

• Citation: 2026 INSC 494

• Criminal Appeal No.: 2457 of 2026

• Bench: Division Bench (Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice K. Vinod Chandran)

• Date of Decision: May 11, 2026

• Court: Supreme Court of India (Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction)

• Impugned Order: Common order of the High Court declining to quash the FIR

2. Legal Framework

Major Laws and Provisions Involved

• Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 482 (inherent powers of High Court to quash FIR); principle of quashing when allegations do not constitute any offence or the dispute is purely civil in nature.

• Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 420 (cheating), 467 (forgery of valuable security), 468 (forgery for purpose of cheating), 471 (using forged document as genuine) – impliedly invoked though not explicitly mentioned.

• Constitution of India, 1956 – Article 136 (special leave to appeal).

Key Precedent Cited

• Mariam Fasihuddin & Anr. v. State by Adugodi Police Station & Anr. – Supplementary report in absence of new evidence is impermissible. The Court noted this judgment to question the validity of arraigning the appellant through a supplementary FIR without fresh material.

Principle Reiterated

• Criminal law cannot be used to further a purely civil dispute. The Court held that where a civil suit is already pending, the same allegations cannot be given a criminal colour merely to exert pressure.

3. Relevant Facts

• A first FIR (No. 588/2018) was registered at Police Station Faridabad Central. The appellant (Sunisha Anand) was mentioned in the first information statement but was not arrayed as an accused.

• Subsequently, a supplementary FIR was filed (Annexure P10) in which the appellant was named as an accused. No new material was unearthed between the first and supplementary FIR.

• The allegations pertained to execution of General Powers of Attorney (GPAs) by the appellant and her mother. The appellant is the daughter of Onkar Singh and Mohinder Kaur, who were title holders to certain properties. Upon Onkar Singh’s death, the appellant succeeded to the property.

• It was alleged that the mother got fake GPAs executed and registered, on the strength of which lands were transferred to certain accused persons, who further conveyed the properties. A portion of the land had already been transferred to the State of Uttar Pradesh, and the vendors did not have title over that portion.

• A civil suit was already pending filed by the de‑facto complainant (second respondent) claiming possession of the lands in question.

4. Issues Before the Supreme Court

• Issue No. 1: Whether the appellant could be arrayed as an accused through a supplementary FIR in the absence of any new material uncovered during further investigation.

• Issue No. 2: Whether the execution of GPAs by a mother and daughter can be termed as “fake” or “fraudulent” merely because the vendors conveyed more property than they had title over.

• Issue No. 3: Whether a pending civil suit and the same set of allegations can be permitted to proceed as a criminal prosecution, or whether the FIR is liable to be quashed as an abuse of the process of law.

5. Ratio Decidendi

A. Execution of GPA by mother and daughter cannot be termed “fake” or “fraudulent”.
The Court observed that the very contention is that the GPAs were executed by the mother and daughter themselves. There was no allegation that the GPAs were forged by a third party or that the signatures were not genuine. Therefore, the label of “fake” or “fraudulent” was not sustainable. (Para 5)

B. Conveying more property than title does not attract criminal liability against the vendors vis‑à‑vis a third party.
The Court held that if a vendor conveys property beyond his or her title, the grievance, if any, lies with the purchaser, not with a stranger claiming possession. The de‑facto complainant (allegedly in possession) was not a party to the GPA or the sale deed. No criminality was made out against the appellant on the facts disclosed. (Para 5)

C. Criminal law cannot be used to further a purely civil dispute.
The Court noted that a civil suit was already pending initiated by the de‑facto complainant. The same allegations were being given a criminal colour, which is an abuse of the process of law. The proper forum for adjudication of title and possession is the civil court, not the criminal court. (Para 5)

D. Supplementary FIR without new material is impermissible.
The Court referred to Mariam Fasihuddin to question the validity of the supplementary report that arrayed the appellant. In the absence of any fresh evidence unearthed after the first FIR, the subsequent arraignment was not justified. (Para 2)

E. Quashing of FIR limited to the appellant.
The Court quashed FIR No. 588/2018 only insofar as the appellant was concerned, leaving the prosecution against other accused unaffected. (Para 6)

6. New Legal Principles Established / Reiterated

• First, the principle that criminal proceedings cannot be used as a tool for recovery or for adjudication of civil disputes is reaffirmed. Where the substratum of the complaint is a property dispute already pending before a civil court, the continuation of criminal proceedings amounts to abuse of process.

• Second, a mere allegation of “fake” document without any material to show forgery (e.g., false signature or impersonation) is insufficient to sustain an FIR. Execution of a document by the person named therein does not become “fake” simply because the executant lacked title to part of the property.

• Third, a supplementary FIR or supplementary report that merely repeats the same allegations without any fresh investigation or new material cannot be used to array additional accused. The decision in Mariam Fasihuddin was applied.

7. Court’s Examination and Analysis of Concepts

The Division Bench examined the first FIR and the supplementary FIR side by side. It found that the first information statement already referred to the appellant, yet she was not made an accused. No new evidence was collected during further investigation that could justify her subsequent arraignment. The allegations against her were that she, along with her mother, executed GPAs. The Court reasoned that executing a document cannot, by itself, constitute forgery or cheating unless there is an element of impersonation or false representation that the executant knew to be false. Here, the appellant and her mother claimed title based on succession; whether they actually had title was a civil dispute.

The Court further noted that the de‑facto complainant was not a purchaser under the GPA or the sale deed. He claimed to be in possession of the land. Even if the vendors conveyed more property than they owned, the only person who could complain was the purchaser. A third party in possession cannot seek criminal remedy for what is essentially a dispute over title and boundaries. The pending civil suit was the appropriate remedy.

8. Critical Analysis

Strengths: The judgment correctly identifies the line between civil and criminal wrongs. It prevents the misuse of criminal law to settle property disputes. By holding that execution of a document by the named person is not “forgery” merely because of title issues, the Court saves many genuine transactions from being branded as fraudulent. The reliance on Mariam Fasihuddin also checks the practice of filing supplementary reports without any fresh investigation.

Potential concerns: The judgment is fact‑specific. It does not lay down an absolute bar on supplementary FIRs; it only requires that there be new material. The Court did not elaborate on what would constitute sufficient new material. Also, the judgment does not discuss the impact of the appellant having benefited from the transaction – but that was not argued.

Practical impact: This judgment will be cited in all cases where an FIR is sought to be quashed on the ground that the dispute is civil in nature, especially in property matters where GPAs and sale deeds are involved. It strengthens the position of persons accused of document‑related offences where the allegation is purely about title or contractual rights.

9. Final Outcome

• The appeal was allowed.

• FIR No. 588 dated 02.06.2018, registered at Police Station Faridabad Central, was quashed insofar as the appellant Sunisha Anand was concerned.

• The prosecution of other accused was not affected.

• Pending applications were disposed of.

10. Practical Application

First, a person accused of forgery or cheating in a property transaction, where the allegation is that the vendor lacked title or conveyed excess property, can cite this judgment to argue that such allegations do not constitute a criminal offence. The proper remedy is civil, not criminal.

Second, if an accused is added through a supplementary report or supplementary FIR without any fresh material or investigation, the accused can rely on Mariam Fasihuddin and paragraph 2 of this judgment to argue that the supplementary report is invalid.

Third, where a civil suit is already pending between the parties on the same subject matter, this judgment can be used to quash the criminal proceedings on the ground that the dispute is purely civil and criminal law is being used as a pressure tactic.

11.  Court Lines

Line 1 (GPA execution not fake – Para 5):
“We are unable to comprehend how the GPA can be termed as fake or fraudulent, when the very contention is that the GPAs were executed by the mother and daughter.”

Line 2 (Excess conveyance not criminal – Para 5):
“Further the jamabandi having been noticed in the sale deed or the vendors having conveyed more property than they had title over cannot lead to any criminal liability as such; which if at all alleged, should be by the purchasers.”

Line 3 (Civil dispute cannot be criminalised – Para 5):
“Admittedly, there is a civil suit pending as initiated by the de‑facto complainant. Criminal law cannot be used to further the cause in a purely civil dispute.”

Line 4 (Supplementary report without new evidence – Para 2):
“The decision in Mariam Fasihuddin & Anr. v. State by Adugodi Police Station & Anr. is relied on, wherein submission of supplementary report in the absence of new evidence was frowned upon.”

12. Legal Strategy Insight

For an accused in a property‑related FIR: Immediately examine whether the complainant is a purchaser or a third party. If the complainant is not a party to the disputed document, argue that the person has no locus to allege forgery or cheating. Also, check if a civil suit is pending – if yes, file a quashing petition citing this judgment and Indian Oil Corpn. v. NEPC India Ltd. (civil dispute cannot be criminalised).

For a complainant seeking to enforce property rights: Ensure that you are the person directly aggrieved (e.g., purchaser under a deed). If you are only a claimant in possession, first exhaust civil remedies. Do not file an FIR unless there is clear evidence of forgery (e.g., forged signature, impersonation) beyond a mere title dispute. Filing a criminal case without such evidence may be quashed with costs.

For a lawyer challenging a supplementary FIR: Demand the “further investigation” report. Show that no new evidence was collected between the first FIR and the supplementary report. Cite Mariam Fasihuddin and paragraph 2 of this judgment to argue that the supplementary report is a nullity.