In a significant judgment emphasizing the importance of due process in criminal investigations, the Supreme Court has reinstated an FIR that was quashed by the Delhi High Court in a multi-crore property fraud case. This case centers around a 2004 land deal valued at ₹28 crore for a prime property located at 28-A, Prithvi Raj Road in New Delhi.
The appellant, businessman Punit Beriwala, entered into an agreement with Bhai Manjit Singh, who claimed to be the Karta (head) of his Hindu Undivided Family (HUF). The agreement was witnessed by Vikramjit Singh (his son) and Maheep Singh (his wife). Over several months, Beriwala paid ₹1.64 crore as an advance, with signed receipts to evidence these transactions. However, despite repeated assurances, the sale did not materialize.
Years later, Beriwala found out that not only had the property been mortgaged multiple times, but it had also been sold to J.K. Paper Limited in 2021. A closer investigation revealed that at the time of the 2004 agreement; Bhai Manjit Singh was not the Karta of the HUF; his son Vikramjit Singh had held that position since 2000. This revelation was central to the complaint suggesting that the accused had willfully misrepresented their authority to sell, thus defrauding the buyer.
While the Delhi High Court quashed the FIR filed in 2022 on the grounds of delay and the existence of a civil suit for specific performance, the Supreme Court overturned this ruling. The apex court highlighted that delay alone cannot justify quashing an FIR when the allegations suggest serious cognizable offenses such as forgery, criminal breach of trust, and conspiracy.
The Supreme Court noted that both Vikramjit and Maheep Singh were aware of the legal status of the property but still allowed Bhai Manjit Singh to present himself as Karta, thus facilitating fraudulent activity. The court also highlighted the significance of the accused subsequently mortgaging and selling the property without regard to Beriwala’s previous claims, even after having received payment.
The judgment stated, “The FIR discloses a well-planned conspiracy involving all three accused. Their roles extend beyond being mere witnesses; they actively misled the appellant.”
If fraud is alleged from the start, the court rejected the argument that civil remedies prevented criminal proceedings and reaffirmed that civil and criminal cases can proceed simultaneously. The court also stressed upon that cross-FIRs regarding the matter, including one from Bhai Manjit Singh accusing Beriwala of forgery, should be investigated together to ascertain the facts.
This ruling reinforces established legal principles, that’s criminal complaints should not be prematurely dismissed during the investigation stage, specially in economic offenses that involve deliberate misrepresentation. The Court mandated the continuation of the investigation against Vikramjit and Maheep Singh, thereby restoring FIR No. 94/2022 registered with the Economic Offences Wing, Mandir Marg.
This verdict shows that the judiciary is dedicated towards transparency and accountability in complex property disputes involving significant amounts and influential individuals.