Calcutta HC Quashes Forgery Charges, Rules Obtaining CIBIL Report Without Altering Contents Isn't Forgery Under IPC - 2025-10-12

Calcutta High Court Quashes Forgery Proceedings in Merlin Projects Dispute, Cites Abuse of Process

Kolkata: In a significant ruling, the Calcutta High Court, presided over by Justice Ananya Bandyopadhyay, has quashed criminal proceedings for forgery and criminal intimidation against Sushil Mohta, Managing Director of Merlin Projects Ltd. (MPL), and two others. The court held that the allegations, which primarily revolved around the unauthorized procurement and circulation of a CIBIL report, did not constitute the offence of forgery under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) as the contents of the report itself were not altered.

The court, exercising its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), found that continuing the proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law, particularly given the long history of civil and criminal litigation between the parties, which stemmed from a property dispute.

Background of the Case

The dispute originated from a 2003 agreement where the family of the complainant (opposite party no. 2) purchased a row-house from MPL's "Merlin Greens" project. After defaulting on a housing loan from Union Bank of India (U.B.I.), the bank initiated proceedings under the SARFAESI Act, repossessed the property in 2007, and subsequently sold it to a third party.

This repossession triggered a series of litigations, including consumer complaints and multiple criminal cases filed by the complainant's family against MPL's officials. The present case arose from Jadavpur P.S. Case No. 131/2010, where it was alleged that the petitioners had conspired to illegally obtain the complainant's family's CIBIL reports, circulated them with malicious intent, and issued threats.

After an initial police investigation concluded the case was a "mistake of law," the complainant filed a Narazi petition, leading the Magistrate to convert it into a complaint case and issue process against the petitioners under Sections 465, 468, 469, 506, and 120B of the IPC. The petitioners challenged this order before the High Court, seeking to quash the proceedings.

Arguments from Both Sides

Petitioners' Arguments: - Abuse of Process: The petitioners, represented by Mr. Sudipta Moitra, argued that the criminal complaint was a malicious attempt to harass them, stemming from a purely civil dispute that had already been extensively litigated in consumer forums. They highlighted that a previous criminal case on similar grounds had been closed by the police, a fact which the complainant suppressed. - Forgery Not Made Out: The core legal argument was that the act of obtaining a CIBIL report, even if unauthorized, does not amount to making a "false document" under Section 464 IPC. They contended that forgery requires the document to "tell a lie about itself," meaning its origin or authorship is falsified, not merely that it contains false statements or was obtained improperly. Since the CIBIL report's content was not altered, no forgery occurred. - Suppression of Facts: The petitioners emphasized that the complainant had not approached the court with clean hands, having suppressed the finality of previous proceedings and the stay orders granted by higher consumer forums.

Respondent's Arguments: - Prima Facie Case Established: The respondent argued that the police charge sheet, despite recommending closure on a technicality, had confirmed the commission of offences. It was alleged that the petitioners had used a former bank employee's credentials to fraudulently access the CIBIL database and then used the report to criminally intimidate the complainant's family. - Mala Fide Intent: The respondent claimed the petitioners, being influential, had manipulated the police investigation. They submitted that the circulation of the confidential CIBIL report caused severe mental trauma and financial loss to the family, justifying the criminal proceedings for forgery, intimidation, and offences under the Information Technology Act.

Court's Analysis and Pivotal Findings

Justice Bandyopadhyay meticulously examined the definition of forgery and its application to the facts of the case. The court observed that the dispute was fundamentally civil in nature and had been adjudicated by consumer forums, culminating in a final compensation order that MPL had complied with.

The judgment made a crucial distinction regarding the offence of forgery:

"Forgery as defined in the Indian Penal Code involves production or creation of a false document or electronic record with the intent to deceive. In the instant case, if any private information was obtained from the electronic record did not comprise forgery since the contents of the record remained as its is in the source... The information as alleged to have been circulated... cannot be altered, modified or reconstructed subsequently by anybody which would instantaneously be recorded in the system."

The court concluded that since the CIBIL report itself was genuine and its contents were not fabricated, the essential ingredients of forgery under Sections 465, 468, and 469 of the IPC were not met.

Regarding the charges under the Information Technology Act, the court noted: - Section 66A: Struck down by the Supreme Court in Shreya Singhal vs. Union of India . - Sections 66B and 72A: Not applicable as the facts did not support allegations of receiving stolen computer resources or breach of a lawful contract. - Sections 66C (Identity Theft) and 72 (Breach of Confidentiality): The court found that these sections required further investigation to identify the actual culprit who may have misused credentials to access the CIBIL database.

Final Decision and Implications

The Calcutta High Court allowed the criminal revision applications in part. It quashed the proceedings pending before the Magistrate under the IPC sections (465, 468, 469, 506, 120B) and under Sections 66B and 72A of the IT Act, deeming their continuation an abuse of process under the principles laid down in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal .

However, the court directed the investigating agency to conduct a further investigation into potential offences under Sections 66C (Identity Theft) and 72 (Breach of Confidentiality) of the Information Technology Act to determine how the private financial data was accessed. This ruling clarifies the scope of forgery in the digital age and reinforces the judiciary's role in preventing the misuse of criminal law to settle civil disputes.