‘Civil dispute given criminal colour cannot survive’ Section 482 scrutiny: Rajasthan High Court quashes Jaipur FIR
Rajasthan High Court quashes FIR holding the dispute is essentially civil in nature; refuses to transfer investigation to CBCID for want of collusion.
Last Updated:
Justice Chandra Prakash Shrimali
Jaipur: The Rajasthan High Court has quashed a 2019 first information report registered at the Pratap Nagar police station in Jaipur in an alleged forgery case, holding that the dispute between the parties was essentially civil in nature, was already pending before a competent civil court, and could not be allowed to be prolonged by being given the colour of a criminal offence.
Justice Chandra Prakash Shrimali, in a judgment delivered together in two connected criminal miscellaneous petitions, also dismissed an application moved by the complainant for transfer of the investigation to the Crime Investigation Department (CBCID), observing that no fact had emerged on record indicating any collusion between the investigating officer and the petitioners-accused.
The Court observed, in substance, that the investigation conducted by the police had not disclosed the commission of any criminal act by the petitioners-accused, that the forensic science laboratory report did not prove that the agreement, receipt or stamp paper in question were forged, and that no material had come on record to establish collusion between the SHO or the Investigating Officer and the petitioners-accused. In such a situation, the bench held, there was no just and proper ground to transfer the case to the CBCID for an independent and impartial investigation.
The first petition, CRLMP No. 7460/2022, had been filed by Prashant Bansal and Surendra Kumar Bansal of Jaipur, who sought quashing of FIR No. 240/2019 registered at the Pratap Nagar police station by respondent No. 2 Kavita Pareek, along with all consequential proceedings flowing from that FIR. The complainant had alleged that an agreement, a receipt and a stamp paper had been forged in the matter. After investigation, the police filed a final report. The petitioners contended that no criminal act on their part had been disclosed during the investigation, that the FSL report had not supported the allegation of forgery, and that the dispute was essentially a civil one already pending before the competent civil court.
The connected matter, CRLMP No. 7256/2023, had been filed by Kavita Pareek, who sought a direction transferring the investigation in the same FIR from the local police to the CBCID, contending that the investigation was not independent or impartial. The Court considered both petitions together, since they involved related matters between the same parties.
On the quashing prayer, the bench held that there was nothing on record to show that the petitioners-accused had committed any criminal act in the matter, and that the FSL report had not established the allegation of forgery of the agreement, receipt or stamp paper. The dispute between the parties, the Court found, was of a civil nature and was already pending before the competent civil court. Allowing criminal proceedings to continue in such circumstances, the bench held, would amount to giving a criminal colour to what was essentially a civil dispute.
On the prayer for transfer of investigation to the CBCID, the Court held that the bar was high — the complainant had to demonstrate concrete collusion between the investigating officer and the accused, or some material infirmity in the investigation that called for an independent agency to step in. Mere dissatisfaction with the outcome of the investigation, or with the negative final report filed by the police, was not, in the bench’s view, a sufficient ground to invoke the High Court’s inherent powers to transfer the probe.
In the result, the Court allowed CRLMP No. 7460/2022 filed by the Bansals, quashing the FIR and all consequential criminal proceedings flowing therefrom; and dismissed CRLMP No. 7256/2023 filed by the complainant Kavita Pareek for transfer of investigation to the CBCID.
The judgment was reserved on 30.04.2026 and pronounced on 15.05.2026.
Title: Prashant Bansal & Anr v State of Rajasthan and connected matter Kavita Pareek v State of Rajasthan
Case No.: S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 7460/2022 with connected S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 7256/2023
Counsel for petitioners (CRLMP 7460/2022): Mr. Dinesh Kumar Garg and Mr. Ghanshyam Das Bansal
Counsel for respondents: Mr. Vijay Singh Yadav, Public Prosecutor; Ms. Chhaya Sharma for Mr. T. P. Singh Parmar (appearing for complainant Kavita Pareek)
