Forgery and land-grabbing FIR quashed where original owners’ execution of documents was corroborated by evidence.

The petitioner challenged FIR C.R. No. 11210006250185 of 2025 registered at Dumas Police Station, Surat, alleging offences under Sections 465, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4(3) of the Gujarat Land Grabbing Prohibition Act, 2020.

The dispute concerned land bearing Block No. 888, Village Dumas, Surat, admeasuring approximately 6,500 square metres. The complainant claimed to have purchased the land from its original owners through a sale deed dated 13 April 2023, whereas the petitioner asserted that certain heirs of one of the original owners had previously executed an agreement to sell, irrevocable power of attorney and affidavit in his favour, and had received part consideration through cheques.

The petitioner had raised objections to public notices concerning the land in January 2023 and December 2023, but no complaint was lodged by the original owners or the complainant until 2025.

The petitioner contended that he had never taken possession of, or claimed possession over, the land. The High Court had initially granted interim relief on 6 May 2025. The complainant thereafter approached the Supreme Court, which permitted him to seek vacation of the interim relief before the High Court.

During investigation, statements of the intermediary who introduced the petitioner to the original owners and of the notary who notarised the documents supported the petitioner’s claim that the documents had been executed by the heirs of the original owners.

Whether the FIR alleging forgery and use of forged documents under Sections 465, 467, 468 and 471 IPC disclosed a prima facie criminal case against the petitioner warranting continuation of the investigation?

Whether the allegations disclosed the ingredients of land grabbing under Sections 3 and 4(3) of the Gujarat Land Grabbing Prohibition Act, 2020, particularly when the petitioner neither possessed nor claimed possession of the disputed land?

Whether the substantial delay in lodging the FIR and the surrounding civil nature of the dispute justified exercise of the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction to quash the proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution and Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023?

The Court exercised its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to examine whether continuation of the criminal proceedings was legally sustainable.

The alleged forgery offences under Sections 465, 467, 468 and 471 IPC require, among other things, a forged document and the requisite dishonest or fraudulent conduct connected with its making or use.

Sections 3 and 4(3) of the Gujarat Land Grabbing Prohibition Act, 2020 address prohibited land grabbing and its penal consequences; the Court treated possession or a claim of possession as material to the allegation against the petitioner.

The Court also applied the principle that criminal proceedings should not continue where the allegations and material on record do not disclose the essential ingredients of the alleged offences, particularly where the dispute is substantially civil in nature and the criminal process is being used to advance a property claim.

The Court found that the alleged transaction and the petitioner’s objections had been known to the original owners and the complainant since at least January 2023, yet no complaint was lodged until 2025; this unexplained delay weakened the prosecution case.

The petitioner produced agreements, an irrevocable power of attorney and an affidavit executed by heirs of the original owners, together with evidence that cheques of ₹1,00,000 each had been credited to their bank accounts.

The investigating agency’s statements of the intermediary and the notary further indicated that the documents had been executed and signed by the concerned heirs in the presence of witnesses, thereby undermining the allegation that they were fabricated by the petitioner.

The Court also held that the absence of the petitioner’s signature on the power of attorney, by itself, did not establish forgery.

As regards land grabbing, the Court noted that the petitioner neither entered into possession nor claimed possession of the disputed land, and the complainant could not identify any contrary material.

In these circumstances, the Court considered the dispute to be essentially a civil property dispute with an attempted criminal overlay, and concluded that the continuation of the FIR would not serve the ends of justice.

The Court effectively held that the material did not establish a prima facie case of forgery or use of forged documents against the petitioner, and that the ingredients of land grabbing were absent because the petitioner was not shown to be in possession of, or claiming possession over, the land.

The complainant’s application for vacation of interim relief, Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 1 of 2025, was accordingly disposed of.