A forgery FIR cannot be quashed during investigation when supported by a forensic report.

Respondent No. 2 alleged that the petitioner fabricated a General Power of Attorney (GPA), purporting to have been executed in his favour by her father-in-law on 15 March 2010, and used it to sell property.

She further alleged that the father-in-law was deceased when the sale took place.

The petitioner maintained that the GPA was genuine and relied on an earlier complaint that had been recorded as a non-cognizable report.

Following respondent No. 2’s complaint dated 14 November 2024, the police registered Crime No. 71/2024 for offences under Sections 406, 419, 420, 468 and 471 read with Section 34 of the IPC.

The petitioner sought quashing under Section 482 CrPC (also referred to in the petition as Section 528 BNSS).

The respondents opposed the petition, stating that the investigation was ongoing and that the FSL report had prima facie identified the GPA signatures as forged.

1. Whether the complaint and material then available warranted quashing the FIR and investigation under the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction, despite the allegation of forgery and the reported FSL findings.

2. Whether the FIR could be challenged on the ground that it was registered under the IPC for alleged conduct predating the new criminal laws.

The Court considered its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC to quash criminal proceedings, invoked by the petitioner under that provision and Section 528 BNSS.

The alleged offences were under Sections 406, 419, 420, 468 and 471 read with Section 34 IPC.

On the transitional-law issue, the Court relied on Deepu and Others v. State of U.P. and Others, 2024 4 Crimes (HC) 258, for the proposition that an FIR registered on or after 1 July 2024 concerning an offence committed before that date may be registered under the IPC, while the investigation proceeds under the BNS.

The Court treated the allegation that the petitioner fabricated and used the GPA as serious, particularly because the complainant alleged that the purported executant was deceased by the time of the sale.

The reported FSL finding that the signatures were forged provided further support for allowing the investigation to continue; with the investigation still at an early stage, the Court declined to quash the proceedings.

It also rejected the petitioner’s challenge based on registration under the IPC, applying the transitional approach stated in Deepu.

The FIR and ongoing investigation in Crime No. 71/2024 were not quashed.