Section 482 CrPC | High Court Cannot Quash FIR When Allegations Of Forgery And Fraud Raise Disputed Questions Of Fact: Delhi High Court

"At the stage of discharge and/or quashing of the criminal proceedings, while exercising the powers under Section 482 CrPC, the Court is not required to conduct the mini-trial." Delhi High Court, in a ruling dated October 07, 2026, held that criminal proceedings cannot be quashed under Section 482 of the CrPC when the allegations in the FIR disclose the commission of cognizable offences and raise disputed questions of fact that require a full-fledged trial.

A bench of Justice Saurabh Banerjee emphasized that the inherent power of the High Court to quash an FIR is not meant to be a substitute for the trial process, particularly where the determination of fraud and forgery hinges on evidentiary assessment.

The dispute involves a siblings' rivalry over the estate of their late father, Dr. Dev Kumar. The complainant alleged that the petitioners (her brother and his wife) fraudulently obtained control over family property and manipulated their ailing father into executing a Will and other transfer documents while he was suffering from terminal cancer and was mentally incapacitated. Following an application under Section 156(3) CrPC, an FIR was registered against the petitioners for offences under Sections 420, 406, 467, 471, and 120-B of the IPC.

The primary question before the court was whether the High Court should invoke its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC to quash an FIR when the accused asserts that the dispute is purely civil in nature and that the documents in question carry a statutory presumption of validity. The court was also called upon to determine whether the evidentiary material produced by the accused was of such "sterling and impeccable quality" to warrant the termination of the criminal proceedings at the threshold.

Scope of Section 482 CrPC

The court reiterated that the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC must be exercised sparingly and with extreme circumspection. It is not an arbitrary jurisdiction to be exercised at the whim of the court. The court noted that it cannot engage in a "mini-trial" to assess the credibility of witnesses or the genuineness of documents, as this function is exclusively reserved for the Trial Court.

Court Explains Limitation of Quashing

The bench emphasized that the High Court’s role at the quashing stage is strictly limited to ascertaining whether a prima facie case exists. If the allegations in the FIR, even when taken at their face value, disclose the commission of a cognizable offence and are not "absurd or inherently improbable," the court must refrain from interfering.

Testing the Quality of Evidence

Referring to the Supreme Court’s mandate in Rajiv Thapar vs. Madan Lal Kapoor, the court noted that quashing is permissible only if the material relied upon by the accused is of "sterling and impeccable quality" that would unequivocally rule out the allegations. In this case, the court found that the evidence regarding the mental state of the deceased father and the legitimacy of the property transfers were highly contentious and could only be settled through professional expert testimony and cross-examination during the trial.

No Absolute Bar for Criminal Proceedings

The court addressed the petitioners' argument that the dispute was civil in nature. The bench clarified that the mere existence of a civil remedy does not create an absolute bar against criminal proceedings. Citing Amit Kapoor vs. Ramesh Chander, the court held that if the facts constitute both a civil claim and a criminal offence, the criminal law machinery can be set in motion.

Prima Facie Case Established

The court observed that the chargesheet and the investigative material, including witness statements and medical records, sufficiently supported the allegations of forgery and misrepresentation. Since the petitioners failed to demonstrate that the FIR was mala fide or that the prosecution's case was based on impossible premises, the court found no ground to exercise its extraordinary powers.

"Whether the criminal proceedings was/were malicious or not, is not required to be considered at this stage. The same is required to be considered at the conclusion of the trial."

The court ultimately dismissed the petition, directing that the matter proceed to trial. It clarified that any observations made in the judgment were confined to the adjudication of the quashing petition and should not prejudice the merits of the ongoing trial.

The Delhi High Court's dismissal underscores the judicial reluctance to intervene in criminal investigations involving complex allegations of fraud when disputed questions of fact are present. By refusing to conduct a mini-trial, the court has upheld the standard that the veracity of evidence—especially regarding the mental capacity of a testator—must be determined by the Trial Court through a full trial process.

Date of Decision: 07 October 2026