Forgery committed outside court does not require Section 379 BNSS complaint: MP High Court rules

Forgery committed outside court does not require Section 379 BNS S complaint: MP High Court rules

The High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Indore has ruled that a civil court can direct the police to register an FIR for forgery of a document if the forgery was committed before the document was produced in court, and such a direction does not require the court to first file a complaint under Section 379 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 ( BNS S ). The decision came while dismissing a petition filed by Himmat Singh and three others seeking to quash an FIR registered on the orders of a civil court.

A Family Feud Over Land Turns Criminal

The dispute originated from a civil suit between two sets of siblings over agricultural land. The plaintiffs, respondent nos.2 and 3 (sisters), claimed title to the property. The defendants, petitioners Himmat Singh and Narendra Singh, along with their relatives, produced a will allegedly executed by their father Shersingh in 2019. The civil court, after trial, concluded that the will was forged and directed the police to register an FIR against the petitioners, who included the beneficiaries and the attesting witnesses. Pursuant to that direction, Police Station Dharampuri registered Crime No.242/2026 under Sections 61(2), 336(3), 338, and 340(2) of the BNS .

Quashing Petition: The Core Legal Challenge

The petitioners argued that the civil court's direction to lodge an FIR was illegal because the alleged forgery related to a document produced in evidence. They contended that under Section 379 BNS S (corresponding to Section 340 of the old CrPC), only the court that received the document could file a written complaint, and no police investigation could be ordered without following that procedure. They relied on precedents like * Sachida Nand Singh vs. State of Bihar * and * Iqbal Singh Marwah vs. Meenakshi Marwah * to argue that the bar on taking cognizance except on a court complaint applied to all offences concerning documents produced in court.

The State opposed the petition, submitting that the forgery was a joint fraud and that the civil court had rightly directed registration of the FIR.

Court's Analysis: Distinguishing Forgery Before and During Court Proceedings

Justice Gajendra Singh, after perusing the record and the civil court's judgment, turned to the pivotal issue: whether Section 379 BNS S bars police from investigating a forgery that was committed before the document entered the court's custody. Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Sachida Nand Singh , the High Court noted:

> "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."

The court further quoted:

> "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 court held that since the will was allegedly forged before it was produced in the civil suit, the requirement of a preliminary inquiry under Section 379 BNS S did not apply. The police were free to register a case.

Civil Court's Inherent Power to Direct FIR

Addressing the petitioners' argument that no provision in the Civil Procedure Code ( CPC ) allows a civil court to order police registration, the High Court invoked Section 151 CPC (saving of inherent powers). It 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 noted that without such a direction, offenders often escape by rushing to the High Court for quashing of FIR on the ground that the dispute is civil in nature. It clarified that in appropriate cases, civil courts must exercise their inherent power to ensure that fraud and forgery are not left unpunished.

Key Observations from the Judgment

• "Whenever a criminal case is registered by the police alleging offence of forgery, the accused rushes to this Court under Section 528 of BNS S seeking to quash the FIR alleging that the issue has not attained finality as they have challenged it before appellate Court."
• "Ultimately the offender thus, escapes, from the clutches of law and goes scot-free."
• "This is because of the reluctance of the Civil Courts to issue a direction to the police to register a case of forgery... This measure alone shall send an appropriate message to the intending wrongdoers so that the fraud and forgery could be curtailed."

Final Decision and Implications

The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the FIR was validly registered and that there was no ground for quashment. The ruling reaffirms the power of civil courts to direct criminal investigation into forgery of documents that were fabricated before their production in court, and clarifies that the procedural safeguard of a court complaint under Section 379 BNS S is not a blanket bar for all document-related offences. This decision is likely to have significant implications for cases where forged documents are discovered during civil litigation, empowering civil courts to initiate criminal proceedings without awaiting a separate complaint mechanism.