Cognizance for forgery offences is unsustainable where the dispute is essentially familial and the complainant suffered no loss.

The petitioner-complainant instituted Complaint Case No. 1750(C) of 2022 alleging offences under Sections 465 and 468 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code against the opposite parties in connection with the execution of a deed of gift within the family.

After conducting an inquiry under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ara took cognizance of the alleged offences and issued summons by order dated 18 April 2023.

The accused persons challenged that order in Criminal Revision No. 94 of 2023.

The Sessions Judge, Bhojpur, Ara set aside the cognizance order, finding that the dispute essentially arose within the family concerning the deed of gift and that the complainant had suffered no loss.

The complainant consequently approached the High Court seeking restoration of the Magistrate’s cognizance order.

Whether the Revisional Court erred in setting aside the Magistrate’s order taking cognizance under Sections 465 and 468 read with Section 34 of the IPC.

Whether the allegations and the statements recorded during the inquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. disclosed a sustainable prima facie criminal case, or whether the matter was essentially a civil and familial dispute arising from execution of the deed of gift.

The Court considered Sections 465 and 468 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, which respectively concern punishment for forgery, forgery for the purpose of cheating, and acts done by several persons in furtherance of their common intention.

It also considered the procedure under Section 202 Cr.P.C., under which a Magistrate may conduct an inquiry before issuing process, and the principle that at the stage of taking cognizance the court ordinarily examines whether a prima facie case is disclosed rather than adjudicating the allegations finally.

However, the Court held that interference was justified where the surrounding facts demonstrated that the allegations arose from an essentially civil family dispute and did not support continuation of the alleged offences.

No judicial precedent was cited in the judgment.

The High Court examined the deed of gift and the relationship between the parties and found that the transaction had been executed by opposite party no. 2 in favour of his daughter-in-law, while the other accused included his son and grandson.

The complainant’s signature had also been obtained on the deed, but, in response to the court’s question, he stated that he himself had suffered no loss and that the persons allegedly put to loss were Pradeep Kumar Singh and Prabhansh Singh.

In these circumstances, the Court agreed with the Revisional Court that the allegations did not justify sustaining criminal cognizance for forgery-related offences and that the dispute was primarily familial and civil in nature.

The Court therefore rejected the petitioner’s contention that the mere existence of statements supporting the complaint required restoration of cognizance.

The challenge to the revisional order was dismissed, and the cognizance order was not restored.

The judgment refers to the revisional order as dated 13 September 2023 in the earlier discussion, but paragraph 7 records the date as 13 March 2023.