[Cites 26, Cited by 0]
Delhi High Court
Mr. Mirza Ibrahim Baig (Senior Citizen) ... vs The State (Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi) & Anr on 9 February, 2026
Author: Neena Bansal Krishna
Bench: Neena Bansal Krishna
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Reserved on: 07th November, 2025
Pronounced on: 09th February, 2026
+ W.P.(CRL) 280/2024, CRL.M.A. 2546/2024
1. Mr. MIRZA IBRAHIM BAIG (SENIOR CITIZEN)
S/o Late Mirza Mohd. Ayyub Baig
2. Mr. MIRZA MEHMOOD BAIG
S/o Shri Mirza Ibrahim Baig
3. Mr. MIRZA ADEEL BAIG
S/o Shri Mirza Ibrahim Baig
4. Mr. MIRZA MOID BAIG
S/o Shri Mirza Ibrahim Baig
5. Mr. MIRZA JUNAID BAIG
S/o Shri Mirza Ibrahim Baig
6. Mr. MIRZA ADNAN BAIG
S/o Shri Mirza Ibrahim Baig
All r/o:
N-42, N-Block, Abul Fazal Enclave,
Part-I, Jamia Nagar,
Okhla, New Delhi-110025
.....Petitioners
Through: Mr. M. Hasibuddin and Mr. Sourav
Ghosh, Advocates.
Versus
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS W.P.(Crl.) 280/2024 Page 1 of 12
ARORA
Signing Date:10.02.2026
18:16:12
1. THE STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI)
Through SHO, P.S: Shaheen Bagh, New Delhi
E-Mail: [email protected] .....Respondent No. 1
2. Mr. MIRZA ISLAM BAIG
S/o Late Mirza Mohd. Ayyub Baig
R/o House No.4469, 3rd Floor
Gali Shahtara, Ajmeri Gate
Delhi- 110006
E-Mail: [email protected] .....Respondent No. 2
Through: Mr. Sanjay Lao, Standing Counsel for
State.
Mr. Mohit Chaudhary, Advocate for
R-2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA
J U D G M E N T
NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.
1. The present Writ Petition has been filed by the Petitioners under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "Cr.P.C."), for
quashing of FIR No. 0401/2023 dated 19.11.2023, registered under Sections
420/467/468/471/34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as
"IPC") at Police Station Shaheen Bagh.
2. The impugned FIR was registered in compliance with the Order dated
17.11.2023 under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., on an Application filed by
Respondent No. 2/ Mr. Mirza Islam Baig, passed by the Ld. MM (South-
East District), Saket Court, New Delhi, in CT Case No. 2971/2018.
3. The factual matrix indicates a long-standing family property dispute
between Petitioner No. 1/Mr. Mirza Ibrahim Baig, about 78 years and his
younger brother, Respondent No. 2/Mr. Mirza Islam Baig. The other
Petitioners (Nos. 2 to 6) are the sons of Petitioner No. 1.
4. It is the case of the Petitioners that Petitioner No. 1 purchased the a
plot of land measuring approximately 430 sq. yards situated at Plot No. 42-
43, Jasola Nala, Main Road, Abul Fazal Enclave, Okhla, New Delhi-110025
("Suit Property") in the year 1985, from his own funds, in the name of his
wife and mother. On the other hand, Respondent No. 2 alleges that the
property was purchased jointly by him and Petitioner No. 1 in 1985, from
the Original Vendor/Jagan Singh.
5. It is submitted that on the basis of such false assumption, filed
frivolous Complaint before the SHO, Police Station Jamia Nagar. However,
considering the contents, the Police did not take any action.
6. Subsequently, Respondent No. 2 filed a Civil Suit C.S. No. 386/2010
for Permanent & Mandatory Injunction, against Petitioner No. 1 to restrain
him from handing over possession of the Suit Property.
7. However, the Suit was dismissed by the Ld. Civil Judge, Saket Court,
vide Order dated 06.01.2012, with the observation that the Plaintiff (herein
Respondent No. 2) had concealed material facts.
8. Aggrieved, Respondent No. 2 challenged the dismissal in RCA No.
29/2012. The Ld. ADJ-01, South District, Saket Court, New Delhi.
dismissed the Appeal vide Order dated 16.09.2013.
9. With mala fide intent, Respondent No. 2, through his wife Rehana,
lodged a false and frivolous FIR bearing No. 140/2014 at Police Station
Hauz Quazi under Sections 354, 354A, 354B, 509, and 323 IPC against
Petitioner No. 1 only. Pursuant the trial, despite his advanced age, Petitioner
No. 1 was convicted vide judgment dated 28.05.2019. Aggrieved by the said
judgment, Petitioner No. 1 has already preferred an Appeal, which is
pending adjudication before the learned ASJ, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
10. Respondent No. 2 also filed another Suit bearing C.S. (O.S.) No.
2075/2013, specifically seeking a Declaration and Cancellation of
Documents regarding the Suit Property. This Suit is admitted by both
parties, to be pending adjudication before the Ld. ADJ, South East, Saket
Court.
11. It is further submitted that due to continuous harassment and
intimidation by Respondent No. 2 and his family members, the petitioners
were compelled to shift from their old residence to premises bearing No. N-
42, N-Block, Abul Fazal Enclave, Part-I, Jamia Nagar, Okhla, New Delhi-
110025, from the year 2014 onwards. Thereafter, the Petitioners visited their
old house only with utmost caution, as Respondent No. 2 and his wife kept a
constant vigil over Petitioner Nos. 2 to 6.
12. Despite the pendency of the Civil Suit regarding the genuineness of
the title documents, Respondent No. 2 filed a Complaint under Section 200
Cr. P.C. along with an Application under Section 156(3) Cr. P.C. before the
Ld. CMM (South East) Saket Courts, New Delhi on 28.03.2018 vide CT
Case No. 2971/2018 alleging that the Petitioners had forged the title
documents, i.e. General Power of Attorney, Agreement to Sell, etc., of the
Suit Property.
13. The Ld. MM, vide the impugned Order dated 17.11.2023, allowed the
Application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C, directing the registration of the
FIR.
14. Consequently, FIR No. 0401/2023 was registered. Aggrieved, the
Petitioners have approached this Court.
15. The Petitioners have challenged the registration of the FIR primarily
on the grounds that the dispute is purely civil in nature, pertaining to the
title and ownership of the property. The allegations of forgery regarding the
title documents, are effectively the same subject matter as the pending Civil
Suit in C.S. No. 2075/2013, filed by the Complainant himself.
16. It is asserted that the criminal machinery is being utilized as a weapon
of harassment, to settle personal scores and pressurize the Petitioners into
succumbing to the demands of Respondent No. 2, in the civil dispute.
17. The Petitioners further submit that Respondent No. 2 remained silent
from 1985 until 2010 and has concealed the dismissal of his previous Civil
Suit, in his Complaint. Furthermore, the FIR is based on a Complaint filed in
2018 regarding documents executed in 1985, suffering from gross delay.
18. The Petitioners rely on the fact that the legal heirs (sons) of the
Original Vendor/Jagan Singh, have confirmed the genuineness of the
signatures of their father, on the documents possessed by the Petitioners.
The documentary material including Khatauni, Aksh Shijra and
confirmations from the sons of late Jagan Singh, clearly support the
Petitioners' title and demolishes the Respondent's claim of any joint
purchase.
19. It is further submitted that the Respondent No.2 has not placed on
record even a single document establishing his title, possession or co-
ownership over the property allegedly measuring 430 sq. yards, making the
criminal allegations speculative and vexatious.
20. Reliance is placed on the following judgments, wherein it has been
consistently held that when a dispute is essentially civil in nature, criminal
proceedings ought not to be permitted to continue, Usha Chakraborty &
Anr. vs. State of West Bengal & Anr., 2023(1) Crimes 308 (SC), Criminal
Appeal No. 256/2022 arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 5866 of 2022, decided on
30.01.2023; Shiv Kumar & Anr. vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr., Cr. M.C.
1537 of 2023, decided on 03.07.2023 by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court; M/s
Skipper Beverages Pvt. Ltd. vs. State, 2001 IV AD (Delhi).
21. It is also submitted that no final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. has
been filed till date and the FIR is at a nascent stage.
22. Thus, it is prayed that the Petition be allowed and the impugned
Order and consequent FIR be quashed.
23. Status report has been filed on behalf of the State wherein facts of
the case, have been reiterated. It is stated that during investigation, the
Complainant was examined and asked to produce documents of the
property, which he failed to do.
24. During further inquiry, the property at Jamia Nagar was visited and
the Petitioner was found present there, who provided coloured photo copy of
the documents of the property in question, along with electricity bills and
slips of RWA in the name of the Petitioner No. 1's father, Mirza Mehmood
Baig. Upon local inquiry it was found that the Petitioner has been in
physical possession of the said property since 1990's.
25. Further, it is stated that the witnesses, namely, Mustaq Ali and
Imtiyaz Ali to the documents of the Petitioner had expired in 1990's, as
informed by one Mumtaz Ali. During further inquiry, Sh. Jagan Singh, the
Original Vendor, was asked to verify his signatures, who stated that he could
not recognise his signature on the documents and this statement was
witnessed by his son, Sh. Devender Singh. It is this failure to recognise his
signature that resulted in the registration of the FIR. The FIR discloses the
commission of cognizable offenses under Sections 420/467/468/471 IPC.
The allegations pertain to the forgery of title documents, which is a distinct
criminal offense, independent of the civil liability.
26. Thus, the present Petition is strongly opposed.
27. Learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 2/Complainant vehemently
opposed the Petition, by arguing that the mere pendency of a Civil Suit does
not bar criminal proceedings, if the ingredients of a criminal offense are
made out.
28. It is submitted that the Petitioners forged the signature of the Original
Vendor/Jagan Singh, to usurp the share of Respondent No. 2.
29. Thus, it is prayed that the Petition be dismissed.
Submissions Heard and Record Perused.
30. The core issue before this Court is whether the registration of FIR
No. 0401/2023 amounts to an abuse of the process of law, warranting
interference under Article 226 of the Constitution/Section 482 Cr.P.C.,
given the pendency of a Civil Suit regarding the same documents.
31. In the case of Kamaladevi Agarwal vs. State of West Bengal, (2002) 1
SCC 555, the Apex Court observed that the nature and scope of civil and
criminal proceedings, as well as the standard of proof applicable thereto,
are fundamentally different and distinct. It was held that criminal
proceedings must be conducted strictly in accordance with the procedure
prescribed under CrPC, and the pendency of a civil action in a different
court even though higher in status and authority, cannot be made a basis
for quashing of the proceedings.
32. The law on the permissibility of parallel civil and criminal
proceedings is now well settled and has been reiterated by the Apex Court in
recent case of Kathyayini vs. Sidharth P.S. Reddy & Ors., 2025 INSC 818,
order of the High Court which had quashed criminal proceedings involving
allegations of forgery, cheating and criminal conspiracy on the ground that
civil proceedings for partition and declaration were pending between the
parties, was set aside. The Court observed that it would be "unwise to rely
on unverified testimony" to ascertain the genuineness of a document and
held that the High Court erred in heavily relying on such material to
conclude that no offence was made out. Furthermore, it cautioned that such
an approach amounts to prematurely evaluating evidence, which is
impermissible at the threshold. Where allegations disclose that disputed
documents were used to secure pecuniary advantage, it is necessary that
genuineness of both the documents is put to trial. It was emphasised that the
High Court, while exercising jurisdiction to quash criminal proceedings,
cannot conduct a mini-trial or return findings on disputed questions of fact.
33. In the most recent decision, the Apex Court in C.S. Prasad vs. C.
Satyakumar and Ors., 2026 INSC 39, reaffirmed that adjudication in civil
matters and criminal prosecution proceed on different principles. It was
observed that it is a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that civil
liability and criminal liability may arise from the same set of facts and that
the pendency or conclusion of civil proceedings does not bar prosecution
where the ingredients of a criminal offence are disclosed. Further, it was
observed that adjudication of forgery, cheating or use of forged documents
in relation to a settlement deed will always carry a civil element.
Therefore, there cannot be any general proposition that whenever dispute
involves a civil element, a criminal proceeding cannot go on. Criminal
liability must be examined independently.
34. To sum up, what emerges is that it is a settled position of law that the
ingredients required to be established in civil proceedings and criminal
proceedings, even when arising from the same transaction, operate in
distinct spheres. In civil proceedings, the court is primarily concerned with
the validity, enforceability of a document, to be tested on the touchstone of
preponderance of probabilities. In contrast, criminal law is attracted only
where the allegations disclose the requisite mens rea and the commission of
an offence beyond the civil consequences of the act. The threshold in
criminal law is necessarily higher, as the court is required to examine
whether the act complained of was accompanied by dishonest intent since
the inception.
35. Forgery, fabrication of documents and their use for wrongful gain are
therefore, not mere matters of civil invalidity but constitute independent
offences under the criminal law. Hence, civil adjudication regarding the
validity of a document cannot preclude criminal prosecution where the
ingredients of offences (such as forgery herein) are prima facie disclosed, as
the two remedies differ in their objective, scope and standard of proof.
36. Herein, it is also pertinent to refer to State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal,
1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 where the Apex Court considered in detail the scope
of powers of the High Courts under Section 482 CrPC and/or Article 226 of
the Constitution of India to quash the FIR and held that the High Court
should not embark upon an inquiry into the merits and demerits of the
allegations and quash the proceedings without allowing the investigating
agency to complete its task.
37. In furtherance, the Apex Court in Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.
vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors., 2021 (19) SCC 401 cautioned that courts
must not stifle legitimate investigation at the threshold and that quashing
should be an exception, exercised sparingly, only where the complaint or
FIR does not disclose the commission of any cognizable offence.
38. Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present case, it is
evident that the criminal proceedings emanate from specific allegations of
forgery and use of forged title documents in respect of the Suit Property. The
Complaint filed by Respondent No. 2 alleges that the Petitioners fabricated
documents such as the General Power of Attorney, Agreement to Sell and
other allied documents purportedly executed by the Original Vendor, Sh.
Jagan Singh, in order to claim exclusive ownership over the Suit Property.
39. The FIR came to be registered pursuant to the Order dated 17.11.2023
passed by the learned MM on an Application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.,
after the Court was satisfied that the allegations disclosed the commission of
cognizable offences requiring police investigation. During preliminary
inquiry, the Original Vendor, Sh. Jagan Singh, was examined and stated that
he could not recognise his signatures on the disputed documents, a fact
which was witnessed by his son. This assertion formed the basis for directing
registration of the FIR and warranted a detailed investigation by the police.
40. At this stage, this Court cannot enter into an evaluation of the
evidentiary value of the disputed documents, nor can it determine whether
the signatures appearing thereon are genuine or forged. Such an exercise
would amount to conducting a mini-trial, which is impermissible while
exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution or Section 482
Cr.P.C.
41. The question as to whether the documents are forged, and whether
they were used dishonestly to secure wrongful gain, are matters squarely
within the domain of investigation and trial. Merely because a Civil Suit
concerning declaration and cancellation of documents is pending between
the parties, the criminal process cannot be interdicted when the allegations
prima facie disclose offences under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC. The
validity of the documents for civil purposes and the criminality attached to
their alleged fabrication operate in distinct spheres. If the allegations are
ultimately found to be unsubstantiated, the law provides adequate safeguards
to the Petitioners; however, at this threshold stage, no ground is made out for
quashing the FIR.
42. Lastly, in this regard, reference be also made to M.S. Sheriff & Anr.
vs. State of Madras & Ors., AIR 1954 SC 397, wherein the Apex Court
observed, "a civil suit often drags on for years and it is undesirable that a
criminal prosecution should wait till everybody concerned has forgotten all
about the crime. The public interest demand that criminal justice should be
swift and sure; that the guilty should be punished while the events are still
fresh in the public mind and that the innocent should be absolved as early as
is consistent with a fair and impartial trial. Another reason is that it is
undesirable to let things glide till memories have grown too dim to trust."
Conclusion:
43. In light of the above discussion, it is held that there exists no ground
for quashing the FIR, at this initial stage. There is no merit in the present
Petition, which is hereby dismissed.
44. The pending Applications also stand disposed of.
(NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA)
JUDGE
FEBRUARY 09, 2026/RS
