ORDER

This petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioners under section 528 of BNSS, 2023 for quashment of FIR bearing crime No.242/2026 dated 06.08.2026 registered at Police Station- Dharampuri, District Dhar (M.P.) for the offences punishable under sections 61(2), 336(3), 338 and 340(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

2. Facts in brief are that the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 and respondents no.2 and 3 are real brother and sisters. Respondent Nos.2 and 3/Sisters filed a civil suit claiming declaration of title regarding the agriculture land situated at Village Lunhera Khurd and Village Pipalnakgarhi, Tehsil Dharampuri, District Dhar as mentioned in para no.1 of Annexure P/1. The suit was registered as RCS No.A-34/2022 before 2nd Civil Judge, Senior Division, Dharampuri, District Dhar. Petitioner No.1 and 2 (defendants Nos.1 and 2) alogwith wife and children of Petitioner no.1 claimed that their father Shersingh has executed a will dated 19.02.2019 (Ex.D/154) in favour of petitioner no.2 Narendra Singh in presence of Petitioner No.3 Shivraj Singh and Petitioner No.4 Dharmendra Singh vide judgment dated 28.07.2026 in RCS No.A-34/2022 by 2nd Civil Judge, Senior Division, Dharampuri, District Dhar recorded the finding that after filing the suit the will Ex.D/154 was forged. Himmatsingh (Petitoner No.1), giving the land to Petitioner No.2/Narendra Singh with the help of their relatives as attesting witnesses (petitioner nos.3 and 4) and ordered to lodge an FIR against the petitioners herein with direction that if any other persons are found involved they will also be made accused. Accordingly, Police Station, Dharampuri, District Dhar registered Crime No.242/2026 under Section 61(2), 336(3), 338 and 340(2) of BNS, 2023.

3. The present petition has been filed on the ground that the Civil Suit is decided on the standard of preponderance of probabilities and it is settled law that findings rendered in a civil proceeding more so, findings that are, by the trial Court's own admission in Paragraph 38 of the impugned judgment, not final or -conclusive on the question of coercion/fraud qua one of the very persons named as an accused cannot form the sole and exclusive foundation for a criminal prosecution, which must independently satisfy the higher standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt.

4. It is further submitted that the Will dated 19.12.2019 was set up and proved as an exhibit (Ex. D- 154) during the pendency of Civil Suit No. RCS-A-34/2022 itself, and the finding of the learned trial Court is that the said document was fabricated after institution of the suit and produced/relied upon in the course of the very same judicial proceeding. In such circumstances, the offeace alleged squarely falls within the ambit of Section 215(1)(b) read with Section 379 of the BNSS, 2023), which bars any Court from taking cognizance of an offence described in Sections 340, 338, 336(3) of the BNS relating to a document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in that Court, except on a complaint in writing made by that Court or a Court to which it is subordinate. The correct and exclusive remedy available to the trial Court, if it was of the opinion that an offence had been committed: in relation to a document produced/given in evidence before it, was to follow the mandatory procedure of a written complaint under Section 379 of the BNSS, 2023 which alone can form the foundation of cognizance being taken and not a direction for registration of a police FIR under Section 173 of BNSS, 2023.

5. It is further submitted that where a preliminary inquiry under Section 379 BNSS is dispensed with the safeguard of an opportunity of being heard before a complaint is lodged, and the requirement that the complaint itself (not a mere police FIR) be the foundation of cognizance, are mandatory in nature. No such procedure having been followed by the learned trial Court, the direction contained in Paragraphs 50 and 51 of