A Magistrate may direct further investigation despite submission of a police closure report.

The petitioners, comprising the brother, sister-in-law and nephew of respondent No. 2, were involved in a longstanding family dispute concerning the estate and business interests of their deceased parents, including Associated Chemical Industries and Associated Chemical Industries (Kanpur) Pvt. Ltd.

The dispute concerned the genuineness of a Will dated 11.08.1993, Wills dated 26.10.2001 and 03.04.2009, and a partnership deed dated 02.02.1994.

Respondent No. 2 had previously initiated civil, company-law and other proceedings concerning these documents and the family assets.

On 05.05.2022, she lodged a complaint alleging fabrication and use of the documents, cheating and criminal breach of trust, resulting in registration of FIR No. 386/2022 at P.S. New Ashok Nagar under Sections 406/420/34 IPC.

After investigation, including examination of attesting witnesses and verification of registration records, the Investigating Officer filed a closure report dated 27.07.2022.

On respondent No. 2’s protest petition, the Trial Court directed further investigation by order dated 03.10.2024 and subsequently directed completion of the investigation and filing of a supplementary chargesheet by order dated 17.02.2025.

The petitioners invoked Section 528 BNSS seeking quashing of the FIR and both orders.

Whether the FIR alleging fabrication and use of testamentary and business documents, coupled with allegations of cheating and criminal breach of trust, disclosed cognizable offences warranting continuation of the criminal proceedings, notwithstanding the pending or concluded civil and company-law proceedings between the parties?

Whether the Trial Court had jurisdiction to direct further investigation and submission of a supplementary chargesheet after the Investigating Officer had filed a closure report?

Whether the disputed questions concerning the genuineness of the Wills and partnership deed, the evidentiary value of attesting witnesses and handwriting-expert material, and the alleged delay justified quashing of the FIR under Section 528 BNSS?

The Court applied Section 528 BNSS, which preserves the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice; such jurisdiction is extraordinary and must be exercised sparingly, particularly where disputed questions of fact require evidence.

Applying the principles in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, the Court held that quashing is justified where the allegations, even if accepted at face value, do not disclose an offence or where continuation of proceedings would constitute an abuse of process.

Relying on Neeharika Infrastructure (P) Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, the Court reiterated that the High Court should not conduct a meticulous examination of evidence or a mini-trial while considering interference with an FIR or pending investigation.

The Court further recognised that the existence of civil proceedings does not bar criminal investigation where the allegations independently disclose forgery, cheating, criminal breach of trust or use of forged documents.

A Magistrate is not bound to mechanically accept a closure report and may, upon considering a protest petition and the investigation material, direct further investigation.

The Court held that the allegations were not confined to a dispute over the interpretation or distribution of the estate; respondent No. 2 specifically alleged that the documents forming the basis of the petitioners’ asserted rights had been forged or fabricated and subsequently used to deal with the estate and business assets.

Accordingly, the allegations, taken at face value, disclosed matters requiring criminal investigation, and the prior or pending civil proceedings did not eliminate possible criminal culpability.

The earlier dismissal of the challenge to the 1993 Will was on limitation and did not amount to a finding that the document was genuine; the proceedings concerning the 2009 Will were still pending.

The Court declined to determine the genuineness of the documents, the reliability of attesting witnesses, or the correctness of handwriting-expert opinions, as those matters involved disputed evidence and could not be resolved under Section 528 BNSS.

Since the Trial Court found that the alleged forgery had not been sufficiently investigated, particularly through forensic or handwriting examination, its direction for further investigation was within jurisdiction despite the earlier closure report.

The allegations under Sections 406 and 420 IPC were also not examined in isolation; the FIR was required to be assessed as a whole, including the alleged use of the documents, subsequent dealings with assets and wrongful gain.

It further held that the Trial Court lawfully considered the protest petition and directed further investigation and filing of a supplementary chargesheet notwithstanding the closure report.

The petition under Section 528 BNSS was therefore dismissed; FIR No. 386/2022 and the orders dated 03.10.2024 and 17.02.2025 were not quashed or interfered with.

The Court clarified that it had expressed no opinion on the genuineness of the disputed documents, the culpability of the petitioners or the merits of the case, all of which were left for determination by the competent court in accordance with law.