Himmat Singh Forgery Case: Madhya Pradesh High Court Upholds Civil Court's Power to Order FIR

Himmat Singh Forgery Case: Madhya Pradesh High Court Upholds Civil Court's Power to Order FIR

Indore, September 11, 2026 – In a significant ruling clarifying the powers of civil courts in criminal matters, the Madhya Pradesh High Court at Indore has held that a civil court possesses the inherent jurisdiction under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to direct the police to register a First Information Report (FIR) for forgery, even when the alleged forgery was committed outside the court premises. The judgment, delivered by Justice Gajendra Singh, dismissed a petition filed by Himmat Singh and others seeking to quash an FIR registered following such a direction from a civil court.

The Dispute Over a Will

The case originated from a family dispute over agricultural land in Dhar district. Himmat Singh and his brother Narendra Singh (petitioners) were defendants in a civil suit filed by their sisters (respondents 2 and 3) seeking a declaration of title over the property. During the civil suit, the brothers produced a will dated February 19, 2019, allegedly executed by their father Shersingh in favour of Narendra Singh. The trial court, after hearing the matter, concluded that the will was forged after the institution of the suit. In its judgment dated July 28, 2026, the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Dharampuri, directed the police to register an FIR against the brothers and the attesting witnesses (petitioners 3 and 4) for offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, including forgery and criminal conspiracy.

The Challenge: Procedure vs. Power

The petitioners approached the High Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, seeking quashing of the FIR. Their primary argument was that the civil court had failed to follow the mandatory procedure under Section 379 of the BNSS (corresponding to Section 340 of the CrPC). They contended that when a document is produced in court and alleged to be forged, only the court itself can make a complaint in writing, and the police cannot register an FIR on a mere direction. They relied on precedents such as Sachida Nand Singh vs. State of Bihar (1998) and Iqbal Singh Marwah vs. Meenakshi Marwah (2005) to argue that the proper remedy was a complaint by the court, not a police investigation.

The State, opposing the petition, argued that the forgery was a serious offence and that the civil court had rightly directed registration of the FIR to bring the culprits to book.

Court's Analysis: Distinguishing the Locus of Forgery

Justice Gajendra Singh meticulously examined the scope of Section 379 BNSS. Drawing from the Supreme Court's decision in Sachida Nand Singh , the High Court noted that the requirement of a preliminary inquiry under Section 379 applies only when the offence is committed in relation to a document while it is in custodia legis – i.e., in the custody of the court. The key passage from the judgment reads:

> "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."

In this case, the will was allegedly forged before it was ever produced in the civil suit. Therefore, the forgery did not affect the administration of justice directly, and the police were not barred from registering the case. The court held that there was "no impediment for the police to register the case."

Inherent Power of Civil Courts

Addressing the civil court's authority to direct an FIR, the High Court observed that while no specific provision in the Civil Procedure Code expressly empowers a civil court to issue such a direction, Section 151 CPC saves the court's inherent power to make orders necessary for the ends of justice. The court relied on the Constitution Bench decision in Manohar Lal Chopra vs. Rai Bahadur Rao Raja Seth Hiralal (AIR 1962 SC 527), which affirmed that inherent jurisdiction cannot be exercised to nullify the Code but can be used where no other provision applies.

The judgment emphasized:

> "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 also noted a broader concern: often, accused persons rush to the High Court to quash FIRs on the ground that the dispute is civil in nature, and many cases are quashed, allowing offenders to escape. The High Court saw this as a consequence of civil courts' reluctance to direct police action. By affirming the civil court's power, the court aimed to send a strong message against forgery.

Final Decision and Implications

Dismissing the petition, the High Court held that there was no scope for quashing the FIR. The investigation can now proceed. This ruling clarifies that civil courts are not powerless when faced with clear evidence of forgery; they can invoke their inherent jurisdiction to set the criminal law in motion. The decision also underscores that the procedural safeguards under Section 379 BNSS are not a bar when the forgery occurred outside the court's custody.

The judgment serves as a significant precedent for family disputes involving forged documents, reinforcing that such matters cannot be simply labelled as 'civil' to evade criminal liability.