The Bombay High Court has clarified that police cannot initiate criminal proceedings in a property dispute where a registered sale deed exists and no complaint is filed for five years, reinforcing the principle that civil matters must not be converted into criminal cases without clear evidence of a cognizable offence.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Gajanan Laxman Khapre, aged 68, engaged in the business of electrical goods, purchased a residential property at House No. 381/A, Nandbachi Dob, Ganjakhet Chowk, Nagpur, from respondent Nos. 3 and 4 - Smt. Pornima and Shri Pandurnag, aged 80 and 60 respectively - by a registered sale deed dated 02.03.2021. The total consideration for the property was Rs. 19,24,000, of which the petitioner paid approximately Rs. 13,00,000 at the time of execution. The remaining balance was left unsettled due to a mutual family arrangement, allowing respondent Nos. 3 and 4 to continue occupying half of the property.
Key Facts
- The sale deed was registered on 02.03.2021 and duly stamped and recorded with the Sub-Registrar’s Office
- The petitioner has no prior criminal record or pending complaints against him
- Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 did not raise any objection, complaint, or legal challenge to the sale deed for nearly five years, from March 2021 until mid-2025
- The property’s market value increased significantly during this period
- In 2025, respondent Nos. 3 and 4 filed a civil suit (Spl.C.S. No. 260/2025) seeking cancellation of the sale deed, alleging coercion and undue influence
- The Civil Court rejected their application for interim injunction, observing that the delay in challenging the sale deed exceeded the limitation period
- On 30.08.2025 and 24.10.2025, the Tahsil Police Station and Anti Land Grabbing Squad issued intimation letters directing the petitioner to appear with bank statements and documents relating to the transaction
- The petitioner submitted documents and explanations to the police, which were allegedly ignored
- The petitioner alleges threats of arrest by Mr. Rajesh Belokar, an officer attached to the Anti Land Mafia Squad
Procedural History
- 02.03.2021: Registered sale deed executed between petitioner and respondent Nos. 3 and 4
- 2021 - 2025: No complaint, notice, or legal action initiated by respondent Nos. 3 and 4
- 2025: Civil suit (Spl.C.S. No. 260/2025) filed by relatives of respondent No. 4 seeking cancellation of sale deed
- Early 2025: Civil Court rejects injunction application, citing delay and acquiescence
- 30.08.2025: First intimation letter issued by Tahsil Police Station demanding documents and appearance
- 24.10.2025: Second intimation letter issued, reiterating demand
- 17.02.2026: Criminal Writ Petition No. 899/2025 filed before Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench
- 09.03.2026: Judgment reserved
- 17.03.2026: Judgment pronounced
The Parties' Positions
Petitioner’s Position: The transaction is lawful, documented, and undisputed for five years. The police intervention is an abuse of process to harass him. The complaint is an afterthought triggered by rising property values. The matter is purely civil and not cognizable.
Respondent Police Authorities’ Position: A preliminary inquiry is underway. The petitioner’s statements regarding payment are inconsistent. FIR will be registered only if cheating is established. No arrest is contemplated at this stage.
Respondent Nos. 3 and 4’s Position: They were under continuous pressure and fear due to family ties. They delayed action out of emotional vulnerability. The petitioner exploited their trust to grab the property.
Relief Sought
The petitioner seeks quashing of the intimation letters dated 30.08.2025 and 24.10.2025, and directions to the police to cease all criminal proceedings in this matter, which is purely civil in nature.
The Legal Issue
Can police initiate a preliminary inquiry and summon a person for documents in a property dispute where a registered sale deed exists, no complaint was filed for five years, and the Civil Court has already rejected an injunction on grounds of delay and acquiescence?
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner’s counsel argued that the dispute is exclusively civil, as evidenced by the registered sale deed and the Civil Court’s rejection of the injunction plea on limitation grounds. Relying on Lalita Kumari v. State of U.P., he contended that police discretion to conduct preliminary inquiry is extremely limited and cannot be invoked to convert a civil dispute into a criminal investigation. He emphasized that the delay of five years negates any claim of coercion or fraud, and that the police action amounts to harassment and abuse of process.
For the Respondent
The State and police respondents argued that the matter requires inquiry due to contradictory statements regarding payment and the possibility of cheating under Section 420 IPC. They claimed the inquiry is not final and no FIR has been registered. They asserted that the complainants’ delay does not preclude investigation, especially where family relationships are involved and coercion may have been subtle.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the judgment in Lalita Kumari v. State of U.P. [(2014) 2 SCC 1], which holds that registration of an FIR upon receipt of information disclosing a cognizable offence is mandatory under Section 154 CrPC. However, a preliminary inquiry is permissible only in exceptional cases where the information does not clearly disclose a cognizable offence, such as in matrimonial disputes, commercial transactions, or cases involving abuse of process.
"Discretion to conduct preliminary inquiry before registration of FIR is however limited and permissible only in specific circumstances where information does not clearly disclose a cognizable offence."
The Court noted that the sale deed was registered, the transaction was documented, and no complaint was filed for five years. The Civil Court’s rejection of the injunction application on grounds of delay and acquiescence further supports the conclusion that the dispute is civil in nature. The Court observed that the police cannot act as a civil enforcement agency and that the mere assertion of coercion without contemporaneous complaint cannot justify criminal proceedings.
The Court also noted the petitioner’s allegation of threats by a police officer, Mr. Rajesh Belokar, which must be independently examined. The Court rejected the notion that the petitioner’s failure to immediately challenge the transaction equates to consent, but emphasized that the passage of time and the existence of a registered document shift the burden to the complainants to establish fraud with credible evidence - not police summons.
The Verdict
The petition is disposed of with directions. The petitioner shall appear before the Police Inspector (Crimes), Tahsil Police Station, Nagpur, on 24.03.2026 at 11:00 a.m. with all documents. The police shall conduct a limited inquiry, excluding examination of the transfer of consideration amount unless a specific legal provision permits it. Respondent No. 2 shall investigate the petitioner’s complaint against Mr. Rajesh Belokar and convey the decision in writing. Respondent No. 1 shall examine the petitioner’s grievance regarding non-acceptance of documents and respond in writing. No FIR shall be registered without clear, credible evidence of a cognizable offence.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Police Cannot Act as Civil Enforcers
- Practitioners must challenge police summonses in property disputes where a registered deed exists and no timely complaint was filed
- A delay of more than three years in raising allegations of coercion or fraud is a strong indicator of acquiescence under civil law
- Police inquiries must be confined to whether the information discloses a cognizable offence - not to probe civil disputes
Registered Documents Trump Oral Allegations
- A registered sale deed creates a rebuttable presumption of lawful transfer under Section 68 of the Evidence Act
- Oral claims of coercion without contemporaneous complaint or medical evidence are insufficient to trigger criminal proceedings
- Courts will favor documentary evidence over belated testimonial claims, especially in property transactions
Lalita Kumari’s Limits Are Reinforced
- Preliminary inquiries are not a loophole to bypass mandatory FIR registration
- Police cannot use "inquiry" as a tool to harass parties in civil disputes
- Any inquiry must be time-bound, non-coercive, and limited to verifying whether a cognizable offence is prima facie disclosed
