Civil courts can direct police to register forgery cases committed outside court, Madhya Pradesh High Court rules

The petitioners and Respondents Nos. 2 and 3 were siblings involved in a civil dispute concerning title to agricultural land.

Respondents Nos. 2 and 3 instituted RCS No. A-34/2022 before the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Dharampuri. During the suit, the petitioners relied upon a Will allegedly executed by their father, Shersingh, in favour of Petitioner No. 2, with Petitioners Nos. 3 and 4 shown as attesting witnesses. In its judgment dated 28 July 2026, the civil court found the Will to be forged and directed registration of a criminal case against the petitioners, while permitting investigation into the involvement of other persons.

Pursuant to that direction, Crime No. 242/2026 was registered at Police Station Dharampuri for offences under Sections 61(2), 336(3), 338 and 340(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

The petitioners invoked Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023, seeking quashing of the FIR on the grounds that the alleged forgery concerned a document produced in court and could be prosecuted only through the procedure under Sections 215(1)(b) and 379 of the BNSS, and that the dispute was essentially civil in nature.

Whether an alleged forgery of a document, subsequently produced in a civil proceeding, necessarily attracts the special complaint procedure under Sections 215(1)(b) and 379 of the BNSS, 2023, thereby preventing police registration of an FIR.

Whether the civil court had jurisdiction to direct registration or forwarding of a complaint to the police in respect of the alleged forgery.

Whether the FIR required quashing under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 on the ground that the dispute was civil in nature or that the criminal case was founded solely on findings in the civil judgment.

The Court applied Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 concerning the High Court’s inherent power to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice.

It considered Sections 215(1)(b) and 379 of the BNSS, corresponding to Sections 195(1)(b) and 340 of the CrPC, which require a court complaint for offences affecting the administration of justice when the offence is committed in relation to a document while it is in the custody of the court.

Relying on Sachida Nand Singh v. State of Bihar, (1998) 2 SCC 493, the Court held that this restriction applies where the offence is committed during the court proceeding or while the document is in custodia legis, and not where the forgery was completed before the document was produced in court.

The Court further relied on Manohar Lal Chopra v. Rai Bahadur Rao Raja Seth Hiralal, AIR 1962 SC 527, for the principle that a civil court may exercise inherent powers under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, where necessary to secure the ends of justice, provided such power does not contradict an express statutory provision.

The Court distinguished between forgery committed within the judicial proceeding and forgery committed outside the court before the document was produced in evidence.

It found that the alleged Will had been fabricated outside the court and was only subsequently relied upon during the civil suit; therefore, the offence did not fall within the statutory bar requiring a complaint by the court under Sections 215(1)(b) and 379 of the BNSS.

Consequently, the police were competent to register and investigate the FIR.

The Court also held that the absence of an express provision in the CPC authorising a civil court to direct registration of an FIR did not prohibit such a direction, since the civil court could invoke its inherent jurisdiction under Section 151 CPC in cases involving alleged fraud or forgery.

The petitioners’ contention that the matter was merely a family or title dispute did not justify quashing the FIR because the allegation of forgery disclosed a distinct criminal offence warranting investigation.

The civil court was competent to direct that the forgery allegation be forwarded to the police, and the FIR disclosed a matter requiring investigation.

Accordingly, the petition under Section 528 of the BNSS was dismissed and the FIR in Crime No. 242/2026 was not quashed.