Madras HC Upholds Setting Aside Court-Ordered Forgery Complaint Over 2013 Deed: ‘Tenkasi District’ Label Alone Could Not Show Forgery At This Stage

The respondent, as plaintiff in a suit for declaration and consequential reliefs, relied on photocopies of two unregistered documents, including a 2013 settlement deed allegedly executed by his father in his favour.

The petitioner/first defendant alleged that the documents were forged and sought proceedings under Sections 379 and 215(1)(b) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).

The Sub Court found no prima facie fabrication of the 1993 sale deed but found a prima facie case concerning the 2013 settlement deed, relying on its reference to “Tenkasi District” before the district was formed in 2019.

The Principal District Judge set aside that finding, reasoning that the allegation concerned forgery before the document was produced in court and that the document’s genuineness and the respondent’s connection to any forgery required determination.

The petitioner challenged the appellate judgment under Section 528 BNSS.

Section 379 BNSS empowers a court to make a complaint in respect of offences covered by Section 215(1)(b) BNSS where it considers an inquiry expedient in the interests of justice; the power requires material supporting a prima facie case and is not to be exercised on mere suspicion or doubtful inferences.

Under Chajoo Ram v. Radhey Shyam, prosecution for perjury should be initiated only where deliberate and conscious falsehood on a matter of substance is prima facie shown and there is a reasonable foundation for the charge.

Iqbal Singh Marwah v. Meenakshi Marwah establishes that a court complaint is not automatic and that expediency is assessed with regard to the effect of the alleged offence on the administration of justice.

Amarsang Nathaji v. Hardik Harshadbhai Patel requires both a prima facie case and a finding that an inquiry is expedient in the interests of justice; a preliminary inquiry is not invariably necessary.

The court also noted that the Section 195(1)(b)(ii) CrPC bar, now reflected in Section 215(1)(b)(ii) BNSS, does not apply in the same way where the alleged forgery occurred before the document was produced in court.

The Sub Court’s suspicion rested solely on the reference to “Tenkasi District” in a 2013 document.

However, information from the District Registrar confirmed that the stamp papers had been sold to the respondent’s father in 2013 and that the Tenkasi Sub Registration District had existed since 1973.

The respondent was not a signatory to the settlement deed, and the record disclosed no other circumstance supporting a finding of deliberate fabrication by him.

Applying the requirement of a prima facie case and reasonable foundation, the High Court held that the document could not, on this material and at this stage, be branded forged or trigger a court complaint.

It found no error in the appellate court’s decision to leave the document’s genuineness and the respondent’s connection to it for determination in the civil suit.

It clarified that it expressed no opinion on the genuineness of either document; the trial court must decide that question on the evidence and may proceed under Section 379 BNSS if warranted thereafter.