Patna HC Upholds Dismissal Of Heirs’ Forgery Complaint Over 1989 Land Deed, Citing 26-Year Delay And No Original Signatures On Certified Copy

The petitioners, sons and legal heirs of the original complainant, challenged the Magistrate’s dismissal under Section 203 CrPC of a complaint alleging that a 1989 sale deed concerning ancestral land had been fraudulently executed and registered by impersonation.

The Magistrate dismissed the complaint after considering the complainant’s solemn affirmation and enquiry evidence; the Sessions Court dismissed the complainant’s revision.

The petitioners then sought relief under Section 482 CrPC, arguing that the denial of execution and attestation by persons named in the deed warranted issuance of process.

The alleged forgery had been identified through a certified copy, and the complaint was filed in 2015, more than 25 years after the deed.

Section 203 CrPC permits dismissal where, after considering the complaint, examination on oath and any enquiry under Section 202, the Magistrate finds no sufficient ground for proceeding; the corresponding inquiry is not a trial but requires assessment of whether the complaint is intrinsically true (Vadilal Panchal v. Dattatraya Dulaji Ghadigaoker, AIR 1960 SC 1113; Chandra Deo Singh v. Prokash Chandra Bose, AIR 1963 SC 1430).

The inquiry also guards against false, vexatious or harassing complaints (Nirmaljit Singh Hoon v. State of West Bengal, (1973) 3 SCC 753).

Although Section 397(3) CrPC bars a further revision, Section 482 preserves the High Court’s inherent power, exercisable sparingly and cautiously in exceptional cases to prevent miscarriage of justice or abuse of process (Krishnan v. Krishnaveni, (1997) 4 SCC 241).

The Court found no perversity in the Magistrate’s assessment of the complainant’s own material.

The alleged forgery was said to have been discovered from a certified copy, which did not contain the original signatures; the enquiry evidence also included a witness’s denial of signing, the complainant’s brother’s statement that he knew nothing of the case, and evidence concerning later discovery of the alleged forgery without subsequent action.

The long interval between the 1989 deed and the 2015 complaint, together with the complainant’s assertion of continued possession and the absence of a civil challenge, could be considered in assessing whether sufficient ground to proceed existed.

Although the revisional court had referred to materials produced by the proposed accused, the High Court expressly excluded those materials from its assessment and held that the Magistrate’s order remained sustainable on the complainant’s evidence alone.

The asserted summoning of the sale-deed register was not supported by the orders below or other material.

The petition was dismissed.

The Court clarified that the petitioners remained free to pursue any available civil remedy concerning the sale deed, which would be decided independently on its merits.