All News
Court updateOrder of

Supreme Court Quashes Lucknow FIR Over a Land Joint Venture, Holding the Dispute Civil

A Bench of Justices P.S. Narasimha and Manoj Misra held that the FIR, read with the joint venture agreement, disclosed only a civil cause of action, and quashed it with all proceedings arising from it.

Mishpat Legal Consultants · Published

Case record

Court
Supreme Court of India
Bench
Justice P.S. Narasimha and Justice Manoj Misra
Case
Criminal Appeal No. 1127 of 2026, arising out of SLP (Crl) No. 6670 of 2021
Parties
Vandana Jain & Ors. (Appellants) v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (Respondents)
Judgment
25 February 2026, authored by Justice Manoj Misra
From
Allahabad High Court, Misc. Bench No. 16314 of 2021, order dated 30 July 2021
FIR
FIR No. 0112 of 2021, Police Station Hazratganj, Lucknow, under sections 406, 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC
Result
Appeal allowed; FIR and all proceedings arising from it quashed

On 25 February 2026, a Bench of the Supreme Court comprising Justice P.S. Narasimha and Justice Manoj Misra allowed an appeal against an order of the Allahabad High Court dated 30 July 2021 in Misc. Bench No. 16314 of 2021, which had dismissed a writ petition seeking to quash FIR No. 0112 of 2021 registered at Police Station Hazratganj, Lucknow, under sections 406, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code.

The appellants had entered into a joint venture agreement dated 16 August 2010 with Motor General Sales Ltd., giving it development rights over land in Azad Nagar, Kanpur. On 14 March 2021, the company lodged the FIR, alleging false representations about the title to the land and litigation concerning it, non-fulfilment of contractual obligations, non-refund of security money, and the use of a false document. The judgment records that the High Court had dismissed the writ petition in limine.

Writing for the Bench, Justice Misra held that where the cause espoused in an FIR is essentially civil, the court must assess whether it has been given a cloak of a criminal offence, and may consider the admitted facts and documents recited in the FIR as well as its contents. The Court found no false representation in the agreement, held that the security money was adjustable against the appellants' share rather than refundable, and held that a letter could not be called forged merely because the issuing office could not trace it ten or eleven years later.

The JVA is dated 16th August 2010 whereas the FIR was lodged in 2021. If there was something stark about the dishonest intention on part of one of the parties to the agreement, it would have been reported promptly and not after 10 years.

Supreme Court of India, Criminal Appeal No. 1127 of 2026, para 25

The Court recorded that the High Court "did not take pains to carefully read the FIR and consider the admitted documents including the JVA" to find out whether a cognizable offence was made out. It set aside the High Court's order and quashed the FIR and all proceedings arising from it.

Appearances

For the appellants
Pradeep Kant, Sr. Adv.; Divyanshu Sahay, Adv.; Shradha Narayan, Adv.; Nitya Aggarwal, Adv.; Shubham Kumar, Adv.; E.C. Agrawala, AOR
For the respondents
Shaurya Sahay, AOR; Aditya Kumar, Adv.; Shweta Yadav, Adv.; Devvrat, AOR; Devesh Kumar Agnihotri, Adv.; Swati Setia, Adv.; Pabitra Pal Chowdhury, Adv.

Orders

For how the Supreme Court separates a civil dispute from cheating and forgery, including this judgment and Rikhab Birani v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2025), read our analysis of two Supreme Court rulings from Uttar Pradesh and our guide to quashing an FIR.