Can Civil Court Direct Police to Register FIR for Forgery? Madhya Pradesh High Court Answers

Can Civil Court Direct Police to Register FIR for Forgery? Madhya Pradesh High Court Answers

In a significant ruling on the interplay between civil and criminal proceedings, the Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that a civil court can direct the police to register a First Information Report (FIR) for forgery of a document, even without first conducting a preliminary inquiry under the new criminal procedure code.

Justice Gajendra Singh, presiding over a single-judge bench at Indore, dismissed a petition filed by Himmat Singh and others seeking to quash an FIR registered on the direction of a civil judge in Dhar. The case highlights the court's power to prevent fraud and underscores that the mandatory procedure under Section 379 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023—which requires a court complaint for offences relating to documents produced before it—does not apply when the forgery was committed outside the court's custody.

The Family Feud and the Forged Will

The dispute arose from a civil suit between two brothers (the petitioners) and their two sisters (respondents no.2 and 3) over agricultural land in Dhar district. During the pendency of the suit, the brothers produced a will dated 19 February 2019, allegedly executed by their father Shersingh in favour of petitioner no.2, Narendra Singh. The will was attested by petitioners no.3 and 4.

After trial, the 2nd Civil Judge, Senior Division, Dharampuri, delivered a judgment on 28 July 2026, recording a finding that the will had been forged after the suit was filed. The judge directed the police to register an FIR against all four petitioners, leading to Crime No.242/2026 under sections 61(2), 336(3), 338 and 340(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023.

Petitioners' Challenge: Procedure Ignored

The petitioners argued that the direction to register an FIR was without jurisdiction. They contended that since the alleged forgery related to a document produced in court, the only lawful course for the civil judge was to make a written complaint under Section 379 of the BNSS (the equivalent of Section 340 of the old CrPC). They relied on settled law, including Sachida Nand Singh vs. State of Bihar , to argue that a police FIR cannot substitute the mandatory court complaint procedure. They further submitted that the civil suit findings, based on a preponderance of probabilities, cannot automatically form the basis of a criminal prosecution requiring proof beyond reasonable doubt, and that the direction violated their right to a fair hearing under Article 21 of the Constitution.

State's Stand: Fraud Must Be Investigated

Opposing the petition, the State argued that the petitioners had jointly committed fraud and forgery, and the civil court had rightly exercised its power to ensure that the culprits do not escape. It urged the court to dismiss the petition and allow the investigation to proceed.

High Court's Analysis: Distinguishing Forgery Inside and Outside Court

Justice Gajendra Singh delved into the pivotal distinction between forgery committed while a document is in the court's custody ( in custodia legis ) and forgery committed outside the court. The court quoted extensively from the Supreme Court's decision in Sachida Nand Singh :

> "The scope of the preliminary enquiry envisaged in Section 340(1) of the Code is to ascertain whether any offence affecting administration of justice has been committed in respect of a document produced in Court or given in evidence in a proceeding in that Court. In other words, the offence should have been committed during the time when the document was in custodia legis."

> "It would be a strained thinking that any offence involving forgery of a document if committed far outside the precincts of the Court and long before its production in the Court, could also be treated as one affecting administration of justice merely because that document later reached the Court records."

Applying this principle, the High Court noted that the will in question was allegedly forged before it was produced in court. Therefore, the bar under Section 379 BNSS did not apply, and there was no impediment for the police to register the case based on the civil court's direction.

Inherent Power of Civil Court Under Section 151 CPC

The court also addressed whether a civil court has the power to direct police registration of an FIR. Acknowledging that no express provision exists in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the court relied on the inherent jurisdiction preserved under Section 151 CPC . Citing the Constitution Bench judgment in Manohar Lal Chopra vs. Rai Bahadur Rao Raja Seth Hiralal , the court held that inherent powers can be exercised to serve the "ends of justice." Justice Gajendra Singh observed:

> "Forgery is a fraud and so the power of the Court, to unearth the fraud and to bring to book the culprits shall find no barriers. If the inherent powers by civil Court under Section 151 could not be exercised to such a situation, the phrase 'ends of justice' as enumerated in Section 151 will not serve its purpose."

The court further noted that in many cases, accused persons rush to the High Court under Section 482 CrPC (now Section 528 BNSS) to quash FIRs on the ground that the dispute is civil in nature, often escaping punishment. To prevent such abuse, the court clarified that civil courts must not hesitate to direct police action in appropriate cases of forgery.

Decision and Implications

Dismissing the petition, the High Court upheld the civil court's direction and refused to quash the FIR. The investigation into the forgery will now proceed.

The ruling clarifies a crucial procedural point: the mandatory complaint procedure under Section 379 BNSS is triggered only when the forgery affects the administration of justice—i.e., when the document was forged while in court custody. In all other cases, a civil court can use its inherent power under Section 151 CPC to directly refer the matter to the police. This judgment is expected to embolden civil courts to take a proactive role in combating fraud, while also reassuring litigants that the criminal justice system can independently investigate offences that originate from civil disputes.