Prior To Closing Criminal Case Always Ensure Possession Of The Property Delivered To Complainant: Supreme Court Orders Execution Before Quashing FIR

“Despite two orders of this Court, the bailiff’s report was not made available” — Supreme Court of India, in Ritaben Rajeshkumar Thakkar & Ors. v. State of Gujarat & Anr., delivered a notable judgment quashing an FIR involving allegations of cheating, criminal breach of trust, forgery, conspiracy and intimidation—after confirming that the parties had fully and voluntarily settled their private property dispute. The Bench of Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Vijay Bishnoi observed that once the settlement dated 23 June 2025 stood executed, including delivery of possession through a court-appointed bailiff, “continuation of criminal proceedings would be an abuse of process”.

The litigation arose from FIR No. 11207028210655/2021, dated 31 August 2021, alleging offences under Sections 406, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120B, 294(b) and 506(2) IPC. The dispute pertained to immovable property and allegations of cheating and forgery between private parties. When the accused approached the High Court under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing, the High Court declined, by order dated 01 March 2024, to exercise inherent powers. The matter then reached the Supreme Court by way of Special Leave Petition.

During the pendency of the SLP, the parties executed a written settlement dated 23 June 2025, under which half of the disputed property was agreed to be handed over to the complainant. The Supreme Court took note of this arrangement and considered the idea of quashing the FIR only after ensuring that possession, as promised, was actually transferred.

The central legal question was whether the Supreme Court, under its appellate jurisdiction flowing from Section 482 CrPC principles, could quash a criminal case involving allegations of forgery and breach of trust once the parties had privately resolved their dispute. The Court noted that although the FIR invoked serious sections, “the genesis of the case was a private property dispute” and the parties’ voluntary compromise could justify quashing, provided that the settlement was carried out fully.

When the Court discovered that possession had not yet been delivered, it made a crucial observation:

“Prior to passing of an order of closure of the criminal case accepting the settlement, it would be appropriate to direct that possession of the property… be delivered to the complainant.”

This direction ensured that the criminal proceedings would not be terminated merely on paper settlements but only upon real execution of obligations.

The Supreme Court, on 08 September 2025, directed the jurisdictional court to appoint a bailiff to take possession of the agreed portion of property and submit a report within two weeks. The Court further recorded that “a bailiff may be appointed through court” as suggested by the petitioners themselves.

However, the bailiff’s report never reached the Supreme Court, prompting sharp remarks from the Bench. On 27 October 2025, the Court expressed displeasure:

“Despite two orders of this Court, bailiff’s report is not made available… Let notice be issued to the Registrar General of the High Court of Gujarat…”

The Court warned that if the compliance report continued to be withheld, it would be “constrained to seek presence of the Judge of the jurisdictional court and the District Judge”.

In response, the Registrar General of the Gujarat High Court filed an affidavit dated 01 November 2025 admitting that the non-transmission of the bailiff’s report occurred due to “a lapse on the part of officers posted in the Registry”. The Court accepted the explanation but emphasised that administrative compliance with Supreme Court orders is non-negotiable.

Once the bailiff’s report was finally received, the Supreme Court recorded:

“As per report, the settlement dated 23.06.2025 has been executed between the parties and now the parties have settled their disputes out of Court.”

Counsel for both sides further stated that the parties “shall abide by the terms of the settlement” and requested that the FIR be quashed.

Acting on this, the Court held:

“In view of the settlement arrived at between the parties, the impugned order is set aside and FIR… and all proceedings emanating therefrom stand quashed.”

The criminal appeal and all pending applications were disposed of accordingly.

The Supreme Court thus concluded that where parties fully and voluntarily resolve a private property dispute and complete the execution of agreed conditions—such as delivery of possession—continuation of a criminal prosecution serves no purpose. By ensuring execution first, and then quashing, the Court balanced fairness, legality and administrative propriety.

The judgment stands out for its insistence on actual compliance before quashing an FIR and its candid remarks on the failure of the High Court Registry to transmit crucial reports despite repeated orders.

Date of Decision: 07 November 2025