Cousins’ Land Dispute: Patna HC Quashes Forgery Case Over 2011 Official Letter, Finding No Evidence He Altered or Knowingly Used It

The petitioner and complainant, who are agnates, were involved in a dispute over ancestral land and had pursued proceedings before revenue authorities and a civil court.

The complainant alleged that the petitioner relied in a mutation revision proceeding on an interpolated version of Letter No. 346 dated 19 October 2011, concerning permission to transfer land during consolidation proceedings.

The complainant obtained information under the RTI Act in May 2016 and filed a complaint alleging offences under Sections 467, 468, 471 and 420 of the IPC.

After examining the complainant and an enquiry witness, the Magistrate found a prima facie case under Sections 465, 468 and 471 IPC and issued process on 4 July 2016.

The petitioner challenged that order under Section 482 CrPC.

Sections 463 and 464 IPC require the making of a “false document” in the manner specified by Section 464; Sections 465 and 468 IPC therefore require material indicating that the accused made such a document, with the requisite intent, including intent to cheat for Section 468.

Section 471 IPC requires use of a forged document as genuine, with knowledge or reason to believe that it was forged.

Under Section 482 CrPC, the High Court may quash proceedings to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice.

Relying on Mohd. Ibrahim v. State of Bihar, (2009) 8 SCC 751, the Court reiterated that a false claim of ownership does not, without more, amount to making a false document.

It also referred to Vandna v. State of Maharashtra, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1954, on the need for evidence supporting authorship or contemporaneous knowledge of tampering.

It also referred to Sardool Singh v. Nasib Kaur, 1987 Supp SCC 146, concerning criminal proceedings founded on an alleged forged document while its validity is in civil litigation.

It also referred to Mohd. Wajid v. State of U.P., (2023) 20 SCC 2019, on examining the surrounding circumstances where proceedings are alleged to be vexatious or malicious.

The Court also invoked the principles in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, concerning quashing, including where allegations fail to disclose an offence or proceedings are malicious.

The Court found no specific allegation or material showing that the petitioner made, signed, or altered Letter No. 346.

It compared that letter with information supplied by another consolidation office in August 2016 and found that both conveyed the same information about the requirement of permission, notwithstanding differences in format; the complainant had produced no material establishing that the alleged interpolation was attributable to the petitioner.

The Court further found no material indicating that the petitioner knew, or had reason to believe, that the letter was forged when he relied on it, as required by Section 471 IPC.

Considering the pending title suit and revenue proceedings, together with the surrounding history of the dispute, the Court concluded that the complaint lacked a sufficient criminal foundation and that its continuation would amount to misuse of criminal process.

It allowed the application, quashed the Magistrate’s order dated 4 July 2016 and all consequential proceedings in Complaint Case No. 510(C) of 2016, insofar as they concerned the petitioner.