Quashing an FIR alleging forgery is premature and unjustified while forensic reports on questioned documents are pending.

The appellant, the adopted daughter and legal heir of Dr. G.B. Bazliel, alleged that the respondents conspired to grab her father’s ancestral property and bank deposits through extortion, forgery, and fraud

Specifically, she alleged that Respondent No. 2 was fraudulently appointed as a nominee for her father’s bank accounts, leading to the transfer of approximately ₹1.18 crores, and that ancestral land was sold to Respondent No. 1 at a gross undervaluation using forged "No Objection Certificates"

Following her father's death under suspicious circumstances, FIR No. 8/2022 was registered under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, and 120-B of the IPC

While the investigation was ongoing and disputed documents had been sent to the State Forensic Science Laboratory (SFSL) for handwriting analysis, the High Court of Himachal Pradesh quashed the FIR under Section 482 of the CrPC, stating that the ingredients of fraud and forgery were not made out

The State and the complainant appealed to the Supreme Court.

1. Whether the High Court was justified in exercising its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC to quash an FIR while the investigation was ongoing and vital forensic evidence was awaited.

2. Whether the allegations in the FIR and the subsequent materials collected during the investigation prima facie constituted cognizable offences of fraud and forgery.

The Court primarily applied Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), regarding the inherent powers of the High Court to prevent abuse of process or secure the ends of justice

It considered Sections 420 (cheating), 465, 467, 468, 471 (forgery-related offences), and 120-B (criminal conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860

The Court also addressed the application of the precedent Mir Nagvi Askari v. CBI (2009) 15 SCC 643, which pertains to the requirements for proving forgery through the creation of false documents

The prevailing legal principle established is that criminal proceedings should not be stifled at the threshold when investigation into the genuineness of signatures is pending forensic analysis

The Supreme Court held that the High Court’s interference was "premature" and "wholly unjustified"

The Bench reasoned that when allegations of forgery are present and the Investigating Agency has already forwarded disputed documents to a handwriting expert, the High Court cannot quash the FIR without awaiting the forensic outcome

The High Court had "glossed over" the fact that the investigation was "in full swing"

Furthermore, the Supreme Court noted that subsequent SFSL reports confirmed that the signatures on the questioned documents were "facsimile stamps" rather than handwritten signatures, thereby providing credible evidence of forgery that the High Court’s order had ignored

The Court found that the reliance on Mir Nagvi Askari was misplaced, as the proof of the creation of "false documents" was exactly what the pending forensic investigation aimed to determine

The allegations of usurping bank deposits by posing as nominees prima facie constituted fraud and criminal misappropriation

The Court held that the power under Section 482 CrPC cannot be used to stifle a prosecution at the threshold when the material collected is sufficient to proceed against the accused

The Supreme Court directed the Investigating Officer to conclude the investigation and file the final report under Section 173(2) CrPC (or Section 193(3) BNSS) at the earliest, after which the Trial Court shall proceed as per law