High Courts must not quash ongoing forgery investigations where FIR materials disclose a prima facie offence.

The applicant sought quashing of FIR C.R. No. 11191011240306 of 2024, registered at DCB Police Station, Ahmedabad City, for offences under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 114 of the IPC, invoking Section 528 of the BNSS.

The FIR alleged that, pursuant to an arrangement concerning lands acquired by the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation (AMC), a farmers’ society or Khedut Mandali was formed to administer the lands allotted to the original farmers. The applicant and co-accused allegedly held office in the Mandali and fabricated affidavits, possession receipts, sale agreements and other society documents by forging farmers’ signatures and thumb impressions, including those of persons who had already died. These documents were allegedly used to transfer or secure the disputed lands in favour of the applicant.

The applicant contended that he had acquired the lands through prior purchasers and relied on a certificate issued by the society, the alleged 31-year delay in lodging the FIR, an earlier compromise resulting in quashing of another FIR, and an order treating a land-grabbing complaint as civil in nature.

The complainant and the State opposed quashing, asserting that the applicant was a beneficiary and participant in a systematic fraud involving forged documents, including documents purportedly executed by deceased farmers. The investigation was ongoing, and the Court perused the FIR and the investigation papers.

1. Whether the FIR, taken at face value together with the material collected during investigation, disclosed the commission of offences under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 114 of the IPC against the applicant.

2. Whether the High Court should exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS to quash the FIR at the stage of ongoing investigation on the grounds of delay, alleged civil character of the dispute, prior compromise, or mala fides.

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

It considered the ingredients of the alleged offences under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 114 of the IPC relating respectively to cheating, forgery, forgery of valuable security, forgery for the purpose of cheating, use of forged documents as genuine, and abetment.

Relying on State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, AIR 1992 SC 604, the Court reiterated that quashing may be justified in exceptional categories, including where the allegations do not disclose an offence, are inherently improbable, are legally barred, or constitute proceedings manifestly attended with mala fides.

It further relied on Central Bureau of Investigation v. Ravi Shankar Srivastava, IAS, AIR 2006 SC 2872, for the principle that inherent jurisdiction is extraordinary, must be exercised sparingly and cautiously, and cannot be used as a substitute for appellate or revisional review.

The Court also followed Sharla Bazliel v. Baldev Thakur, 2026 INSC 252, for the principle that an FIR should ordinarily not be quashed at a premature stage where investigation is ongoing and material evidence remains to be collected, particularly in cases involving alleged fraud and forgery.

The Court found prima facie material connecting the applicant with the alleged fraudulent transactions. Investigation papers showed affidavits and possession receipts purportedly executed by farmers who had died decades earlier, including documents allegedly bearing the signatures of persons deceased before the dates of execution.

Similar discrepancies were found in respect of other farmers, and the disputed lands stood transferred in the applicant’s name through documents prepared by the Mandali, in which the applicant held a position of responsibility.

These circumstances disclosed an apparent pattern of forgery, cheating and concerted conduct requiring investigation into the authenticity of the documents, the applicant’s role, and the involvement of the co-accused.

The Court held that the applicant’s reliance on the alleged delay, prior compromise, society certificate, and the land-grabbing authority’s treatment of the matter as civil did not eliminate the criminality alleged in the FIR.

The existence of civil or revenue dimensions did not preclude investigation into independent offences of forgery and cheating. Determining the genuineness of the documents and the applicant’s knowledge or participation would require evidentiary examination and could not be resolved through a mini-trial under Section 528 of the BNSS.

Since the allegations did not fall within any of the Bhajan Lal categories warranting quashing, interference at the investigative stage would prejudice the investigation.

The Court found no ground under the Bhajan Lal principles or Section 528 of the BNSS for quashing the FIR.

The application was accordingly rejected, the Rule was discharged, and the investigation was permitted to continue.