A subsisting civil decree does not bar investigation into alleged forgery of documents supporting it.

In brief

The question

Whether a civil-court decree directing correction of the petitioner’s date of birth could prevent investigation into allegations that the documents underlying the decree were forged and used to commit cheating.

The court held

The Court held that the subsisting civil decree did not, in the circumstances, justify quashing or stopping the investigation.

It also directed

It dismissed the criminal petition and directed the respondents to complete the investigation and file the investigation report at the earliest, while clarifying that it had made no finding on the truth of the allegations or the petitioner’s guilt.

01Facts

Respondent No. 2 lodged a complaint, based on information from respondent No. 3 and another person, alleging that the petitioner had fabricated vaccination records to alter his date of birth from 15 April 1988 to 15 April 1987 and thereby qualify for selection as a Police Sub-Inspector.

¶ 2

An FIR was registered under Sections 198, 420, 465, 468 and 471 of the IPC.

¶ 3

The petitioner sought to quash the FIR, relying on a civil-court decree directing correction of his date of birth in school records and marks cards, and a Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal order concerning related disciplinary proceedings.

¶ 4

The State and respondent No. 3 opposed quashing; respondent No. 3 submitted that civil and criminal proceedings could proceed concurrently.

¶ 5–6

02Issues

i.Whether a civil-court decree directing correction of the petitioner’s date of birth could prevent investigation into allegations that the documents underlying the decree were forged and used to commit cheating.

¶ 7

ii.Whether the FIR and investigation should be quashed or interdicted solely because that decree remained in force.

¶ 10–12

03Law Applied

The Court considered the alleged offences under Sections 198, 420, 465, 468 and 471 of the IPC and the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC, invoked under Section 528 of the BNSS.

¶ 10–12

It held that a subsisting civil decree is not, by itself, an absolute bar to investigating allegations that the documents relied upon to obtain it were fabricated; the validity of the decree and whether the alleged criminal conduct warrants investigation are distinct questions.

¶ 10–12

Respondent No. 3 relied on K.G. Premshanker v. Inspector of Police, (2002) 8 SCC 87, for the proposition that civil and criminal proceedings may proceed in parallel.

¶ 5.1–5.3

Provisions in the judgment · 7 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 482

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 528

Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 198 Section 420 Section 465 Section 468 Section 471

04Reasoning

The decree directed correction of the petitioner’s date of birth based on a mother card relating to vaccination.

¶ 8–9

The complaint, however, alleged that the relevant register and vaccination card had been fabricated before the civil proceedings began.

¶ 10–12

Because the alleged fabrication concerned the very documents on which the decree rested, the decree could not conclusively resolve whether those documents were genuine, whether the petitioner was involved, or whether the ingredients of the alleged offences were made out.

¶ 10–12

Those matters required investigation; the decree could separately be challenged before an appropriate forum.

¶ 10–12