NO PRELIMINARY ENQUIRY OR HEARING REQUIRED TO INITIATE CRIMINAL COMPLAINT FOR PERJURY OR FORGERY UNDER BNSS.

The State initiated land acquisition for the Atalgavhan Minor Irrigation Tank in 2011

During proceedings, the Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO) testified that several reference letters (L.A.R. Nos. 5 of 2025 to 13 of 2025 and 74 to 81 of 2017) were forged and never officially issued

The Reference Court, in its judgment dated 19.01.2026, found that the claimants and their advocates had played a fraud on the court

Consequently, the Court directed the District Collector to lodge an FIR and directed the Assistant Superintendent to file complaints before a Magistrate under Section 215(1)(b) of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023

Three advocates (Petitioners) challenged these directions, claiming they joined the cases later and were denied a hearing

1. Whether the Reference Court was mandated to provide the Petitioners an opportunity of hearing or a preliminary inquiry before directing a criminal complaint under the BNSS

2. Whether the Petitioners, who joined as advocates after the initial filing of the allegedly forged documents, can be held liable for the fraud

3. Whether the direction to file both an FIR (by the Collector) and a private complaint (by the Court) for the same transaction is legally sustainable

The court applied Section 340 of the Cr.P.C. (equivalent to Section 379 BNSS) regarding the procedure for offences affecting the administration of justice

Constitution Bench in Iqbal Singh Marwah v. Meenakshi Marwah, which held that a court is not bound to make a complaint unless it is "expedient in the interest of justice," judged by the impact on the administration of justice

Full Bench decision in Pritish v. State of Maharashtra, clarifying that Section 340 does not mandate a preliminary inquiry or an opportunity of hearing for the "would-be accused" at the pre-complaint stage

Principles from Union of India v. W.N. Chadha were cited to establish that the right of hearing is not available at the stage of registering an FIR

The Court observed that the Reference Court formed its opinion based on substantive evidence recorded during the trial, where the SLAO proved the documents were manipulated

Applying Pritish, the Court held that the objective of a preliminary inquiry is only to determine the "expediency" of a probe, not to determine guilt; thus, the lack of a prior hearing did not vitiate the order

Regarding the dual directions, the Court reasoned that offences committed outside court (forgery) justified an FIR by the Collector, while offences on the record of the court justified a Section 215 BNSS complaint by the Court official

Upon factual scrutiny of the vakalatnamas, the Court found that Petitioners No. 1 and 3 joined the cases in 2024 and 2018 respectively, whereas the forged documents were submitted between 2015 and 2017. Consequently, there was no basis to form a prima facie opinion of their involvement in the inception of the fraud

The Court partly allowed the petition. It quashed and set aside the directions and findings in Clause Nos. 3 and 4 of the impugned order specifically against Petitioner Nos. 1 and 3, finding they were not in practice or representing the parties when the fraud originated. The petition of Petitioner No. 2 was dismissed as he was found to have been on record alongside the lead advocate during the relevant period.