Civil Court's Inherent Power to Direct Forgery FIR Upheld by Madhya Pradesh High Court

Indore: In a significant clarification, the Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that civil courts possess inherent power under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to direct the forwarding of a forgery complaint to the police for registration of an FIR. The bench of Justice Gajendra Singh made this observation while dismissing a petition seeking quashing of an FIR registered in a family dispute over a forged will.

The Family Feud and Alleged Forgery

The case arose from a property dispute between siblings. Two sisters filed a civil suit claiming title over agricultural land in Dhar district. During the suit, their brothers, Himmat Singh and Narendra Singh, relied on a will allegedly executed by their father. The will was attested by two other relatives.

The 2nd Civil Judge, Senior Division, Dharampuri, in a judgment dated July 28, 2026, found that the will had been fabricated after the institution of the suit. The civil court directed the registration of an FIR against the brothers and the attesting witnesses. Consequently, Crime No. 242/2026 was registered at Dharampuri Police Station under Sections 61(2) (criminal conspiracy), 336(3) (forgery for cheating), 338 (forgery of valuable security or will), and 340(2) (using forged document as genuine) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

Petitioners' Challenge: Wrong Procedure?

The petitioners, including the brothers and the attesting witnesses, approached the High Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking quashing of the FIR. They argued that since the alleged forged document was produced in the civil proceedings, the only remedy available was for the civil court to follow the procedure under Section 379 of the BNSS, which requires a preliminary inquiry and a written complaint by the court. They contended that a direction for police registration bypassed this mandatory safeguard.

The petitioners also submitted that the civil suit was decided on the standard of preponderance of probabilities and could not form the sole foundation for a criminal prosecution, which requires proof beyond reasonable doubt. They emphasized that the dispute was essentially civil in nature and should not be given a criminal colour.

State's Stand: Joint Fraud

The State opposed the petition, arguing that the petitioners had jointly committed fraud and forgery, and the civil court was justified in directing the registration of an FIR. It submitted that the petition should be dismissed.

Court's Analysis: Inherent Powers of Civil Courts

Justice Gajendra Singh first examined the applicability of Section 379 BNSS (corresponding to Section 340 CrPC). The court noted that the Supreme Court in Sachida Nand Singh v. State of Bihar (1998) 2 SCC 493 had held that the special procedure applies only when the forgery affects the administration of justice while the document is in the custody of the court. If the forgery was committed outside the court and long before its production, the bar does not apply.

"In this case, the forgery was committed outside of the Court. Accordingly, it was not required to conduct preliminary enquiry as per Section 340(1) of Cr.P.C., 1973 /corresponding section 379 of BNSS , 2023 and there can be no impediment for the police to register the case," the court observed.

Turning to the power of the civil court, the High Court acknowledged that there is no express provision in the CPC authorizing a civil court to direct a party to approach the police. However, it found that there is no express or implied prohibition against such a direction. The court traced this power to the inherent jurisdiction under Section 151 CPC, relying on the Constitution Bench decision in Manohar Lal Chopra v. Rai Bahadur Rao Raja Seth Hiralal (AIR 1962 SC 527), which affirmed that inherent powers exist to serve the ends of justice.

"There is no prohibition for Civil Court to exercise its inherent jurisdiction for direction to forward a complaint. Above all, 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," the court stated.

The High Court also expressed concern that in many forgery cases, accused persons rush to the High Court to quash FIRs on the ground that the dispute is civil, and if the High Court agrees, the offender escapes. The court observed that this happens because civil courts are reluctant to direct police registration or initiate proceedings under Section 340 CrPC. The court clarified that in appropriate cases, civil courts must exercise this power to send a message to wrongdoers.

Key Observations

The judgment included the following pivotal observations:

"There is no prohibition for Civil Court to exercise its inherent jurisdiction for direction to forward a complaint."

"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."

"This measure alone shall send an appropriate message to the intending wrong doers so that the fraud and forgery could be curtailed."

Final Ruling

Finding no merit in the petition, the High Court dismissed the application for quashing of the FIR. The court held that the civil court's direction to register the FIR was within its inherent powers and that the special procedure under Section 379 BNSS did not bar police action since the forgery was committed outside the court. The decision reinforces the authority of civil courts to take proactive steps against forgery in appropriate cases, ensuring that perpetrators cannot escape prosecution by characterizing the dispute as purely civil.