Allegations of forgery cannot displace a registered deed’s presumption of genuineness without cogent evidence.

The petitioner, the de facto complainant, alleged that her mother, Sadeka Bibi, had executed a registered Deed of Gift in her favour on 1 February 2012, whereas the same property had previously been gifted to Opposite Party Nos. 2 and 3 by a registered Hebanama dated 2008.

The petitioner claimed that the 2008 deed was forged because her mother was allegedly too ill to attend the registry office. Upon refusal by the police to register the complaint, she approached the Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., pursuant to which Labpur Police Station Case No. 40 of 2022 was registered under Sections 467, 468, 471 and 420 IPC.

After investigation, the police submitted Final Report No. 108 of 2023, treating the case as a “Mistake of Fact” and recommending discharge of the accused, primarily on the ground that the dispute was civil in nature.

The petitioner filed a protest petition seeking further investigation, but the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bolpur, accepted the final report by order dated 29 November 2023.

The petitioner challenged that order under Sections 401 read with 482 Cr.P.C.

Whether the Magistrate erred in accepting the police final report and rejecting the petitioner’s prayer for further investigation into the alleged forgery and use of the 2008 Deed of Gift?

Whether the materials on record disclosed a prima facie criminal offence under Sections 467, 468, 471 and 420 IPC, warranting interference in revision under Sections 401 read with 482 Cr.P.C.?

Whether the dispute was essentially civil in nature and the registered 2008 Deed of Gift carried sufficient presumption of validity to justify acceptance of the final report?

The Court exercised its revisional and inherent jurisdiction under Sections 401 and 482 Cr.P.C. to examine whether the Magistrate’s acceptance of the police final report warranted interference.

The alleged offences arose under Sections 467, 468, 471 and 420 IPC, concerning forgery of valuable security, forgery for the purpose of cheating, use of a forged document, and cheating.

The Court applied the principle that a registered deed carries a strong legal presumption of validity and genuineness, and that the person challenging it bears the burden of rebutting that presumption through cogent and convincing evidence.

The Court examined the original deeds produced by the petitioner and compared the 2008 and 2012 instruments.

It found that Sadeka Bibi’s photograph appeared in the 2008 deed, that she had affixed the impressions of all ten fingers, and that she had personally presented the deed before the Registrar; the photographs in both deeds were also found to be identical.

These circumstances contradicted the petitioner’s allegation that Sadeka Bibi could not have attended the registry office in 2008.

The Court further noted that Sadeka Bibi did not lodge any complaint during her lifetime, died in 2013, and that the criminal complaint was instituted only in 2022, after a delay of approximately fourteen years.

The existence of pending civil proceedings between the parties also supported the conclusion that the dispute was predominantly civil in character.

Applying the presumption attached to a registered deed and finding no sufficient basis for the forgery allegations, the Court held that the Magistrate’s acceptance of the “Mistake of Fact” final report did not require interference.

It held that the allegations of forgery were unsupported by the materials on record, that the registered 2008 Deed of Gift was entitled to the presumption of validity, and that the dispute was essentially civil in nature.

Accordingly, the revisional application, CRR 197 of 2024, was dismissed, the order dated 29 November 2023 accepting Final Report No. 108 of 2023 was affirmed, and any connected applications were disposed of; any interim order was vacated.