FIR cannot be quashed during pending investigation: Supreme Court sets aside premature quashing in forgery and fraud case

Case Name: Sharla Bazliel v. Baldev Thakur & Ors.
Citation: 2026 INSC 252
Date of Judgment/Order: 17 March 2026
Bench: Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta

Held: The Supreme Court held that an FIR cannot be quashed at the threshold when investigation is ongoing, particularly in cases involving allegations of forgery and fraud where expert evidence is awaited. It was held that the High Court erred in exercising its powers under Section 482 CrPC to quash the FIR prematurely, ignoring the fact that crucial forensic examination of disputed documents was pending. The Court clarified that where allegations in the FIR prima facie disclose cognizable offences and investigation is in progress, quashing proceedings would amount to stifling legitimate prosecution.

Summary: The appellant-complainant alleged that the respondents conspired to fraudulently usurp her father’s property and bank assets by forging documents, manipulating sale deeds, and misrepresenting nominee status. The FIR invoked offences of cheating, forgery, and criminal conspiracy. During investigation, discrepancies in land valuation and forged signatures were identified, and documents were sent to the State Forensic Science Laboratory for expert examination. Despite this, the High Court quashed the FIR under Section 482 CrPC, holding that the allegations were speculative and did not disclose essential ingredients of the offences. The Supreme Court found that the High Court overlooked material facts, including the pending forensic examination and ongoing investigation. It emphasised that determination of forgery depended on expert analysis and could not be pre-empted at the stage of quashing. The Court also noted that subsequent forensic reports confirmed forgery and financial irregularities, reinforcing the need for full investigation and trial.

Decision: The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the High Court’s order quashing the FIR, directed the Investigating Officer to complete the investigation and proceed in accordance with law, clarified that observations in the judgment would not affect the merits of the case at trial, and disposed of all pending applications accordingly.