Sunisha Anand v. State of Haryana & Anr.
Background
The appellant's mother had inherited certain properties which were later transferred through General Power of Attorneys (GPAs) and sale deeds to other individuals; the de-facto complainant, who claimed to be in possession of the land, alleged the GPAs were fake and that the sellers did not hold full title to some of the transferred land. Although the appellant was named in the original FIR's statement, she was not made an accused at that stage; she was added only later through a supplementary FIR, without any fresh evidence being unearthed against her. A related civil suit over the same land was already pending. The High Court had declined to quash the FIR against her, and she appealed to the Supreme Court.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court found no criminal culpability could be attributed to the appellant on the facts disclosed. It could not see how a GPA executed by the appellant's own mother could be called "fake" when the very allegation confirmed it was genuinely executed by her, and any issue about the seller conveying more property than she actually owned would, at most, give purchasers (not the complainant) a claim, and that too a civil one. The Court reiterated that a supplementary FIR adding an accused without any new evidence being unearthed is impermissible, citing its earlier decision in Mariam Fasihuddin v. State by Adugodi Police Station. Since a civil suit over the same dispute was already pending, the Court held that criminal law cannot be used to pursue what is essentially a civil property dispute, and quashed the FIR and all consequential proceedings against the appellant.
Lesson Learnt
Criminal proceedings cannot be used as a tool to pressure the other side in what is fundamentally a civil property or title dispute, and a person cannot be added as an accused through a supplementary FIR unless genuinely new evidence has come to light implicating them.