FIR registration is unwarranted where alleged forgery lacks an existing forged document and the dispute is predominantly civil.

The petitioner alleged that Ponappa Gounder and his wife had executed an unregistered Will dated 02.03.1995 in favour of Samidurai concerning 72.75 cents of land in specified survey numbers at Venkatapuram Village.

After their deaths, Samidurai allegedly remained in possession, which was subsequently maintained by the petitioner.

The petitioner claimed that the fourth respondent, Gangadharan, falsely represented that the property had been transferred in his favour and obtained a patta; on the basis of that patta, sale deeds were subsequently executed in favour of respondents 6 to 14.

The petitioner alleged that the documents relied upon for obtaining the patta were forged and sought registration of an FIR.

The police did not register an FIR. The petitioner therefore filed Crl.M.P. No.15873 of 2025 before the Judicial Magistrate V, Vellore.

The Magistrate dismissed the application on 27.01.2026, directing the parties to approach the civil court.

The petitioner challenged that order in the present criminal revision petition under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C.

The Revenue Divisional Officer had subsequently cancelled the patta by order dated 02.05.2025 and directed the parties to approach the civil court for resolution of their disputes.

Whether the Magistrate erred in dismissing the petitioner’s application seeking registration of an FIR in relation to the alleged fraudulent procurement of patta and subsequent sale transactions?

Whether the allegations disclosed a cognizable criminal offence requiring police investigation, or whether the dispute was predominantly civil in nature and therefore appropriate for adjudication before the civil court?

Whether the alleged forgery could be acted upon when the purported forged document itself was not produced or shown to exist?

The Court exercised its revisional jurisdiction under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C., which permits the High Court to examine the correctness, legality, or propriety of an order passed by a subordinate criminal court.

The governing principle concerning registration of an FIR is that police investigation may be directed where the complaint prima facie discloses a cognizable offence; however, a dispute that is predominantly civil in character cannot be converted into criminal proceedings merely by alleging fraud or forgery without sufficient foundational material.

The allegation of forgery must be supported by the existence or production of the allegedly forged document.

Where the dispute concerns title, possession, patta, and validity of sale transactions, the appropriate remedy is ordinarily before the civil court, particularly when the revenue authority has itself directed the parties to seek civil adjudication.

The Court found that the alleged forged document was not in existence or produced before it.

The Revenue Divisional Officer’s report indicated only that two pages of a sale deed had been filed while seeking transfer of patta and that the Tahsildar had been misled on that basis.

This circumstance, without production of the alleged forged document, was insufficient at that stage to establish a prima facie offence of forgery warranting registration of an FIR.

The Court further noted that the patta had already been cancelled by the Revenue Divisional Officer on 02.05.2025 and that the parties had been directed to approach the civil court.

Since the controversy essentially concerned title, possession, patta transfer, and the validity of subsequent sale deeds, the Court characterised it as predominantly civil in nature.

It consequently found no infirmity in the Magistrate’s refusal to direct registration of an FIR.

The allegations, in the circumstances presented, did not warrant criminal investigation because the alleged forged document was not produced and the dispute was predominantly civil, involving property rights and related revenue and sale transactions.

The Criminal Revision Petition was accordingly dismissed, with the parties left to pursue their remedies before the civil court.