Madhya Pradesh High Court upholds civil court's power to direct FIR registration in forgery cases

Madhya Pradesh High Court upholds civil court's power to direct FIR registration in forgery cases

Family Property Dispute Leads to Forgery Allegations
A family feud over ancestral agricultural land escalated into a criminal case after a civil court found that a will produced by one set of siblings was forged. The sisters had filed a civil suit for declaration of title, and during the proceedings, the brothers introduced a will allegedly executed by their father in 2019. The 2nd Civil Judge, Senior Division, Dharampuri, concluded in its July 28, 2026 judgment that the will was fabricated after the suit was filed and directed the police to register an FIR. Consequently, Crime No.242/2026 was lodged at Police Station Dharampuri under Sections 61(2), 336(3), 338, and 340(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, against the brothers and the attesting witnesses.

Petitioners' Challenge: Mandatory Procedure Under BNSS
The petitioners—Himmat Singh, Narendra Singh, and the attesting witnesses—moved the High Court under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 seeking quashing of the FIR. They argued that the civil court's direction was illegal because the court should have followed the mandatory procedure under Section 379 of the BNSS, which requires a preliminary inquiry and a written complaint before any prosecution for offences relating to documents produced in court. They contended that the dispute was essentially civil and that permitting a parallel criminal investigation on identical facts would be an abuse of process. The State countered that the forgery was a serious offence and the civil court rightly invoked its inherent powers to direct registration of the FIR.

Court's Reasoning: Distinction Between In-Court and Out-of-Court Forgery
Justice Gajendra Singh examined the scope of Section 379 BNSS (corresponding to Section 340 CrPC) and relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Sachida Nand Singh v. State of Bihar . The court noted that the preliminary inquiry under that provision is only required when the offence affects the administration of justice—i.e., when the document was forged while in custodia legis . Here, the forgery was committed long before the document was produced in court. The court observed: "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." Since the forgery occurred outside the court, there was no bar on the police registering the case directly.

Inherent Powers of Civil Court Affirmed
The High Court further held that a civil court has inherent jurisdiction under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to direct registration of an FIR to unearth fraud. The court emphasized that "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." It clarified that while there is no express provision in the CPC for such a direction, there is also no prohibition, and the inherent power must be exercised to serve the ends of justice. The court rejected the petitioners' argument that the civil court's findings were not conclusive for a criminal trial, noting that the criminal prosecution must independently satisfy the higher standard of proof.

Final Verdict: Petition Dismissed
Dismissing the petition, the High Court held that the civil court's direction to lodge the FIR was valid and that the investigation could proceed. The ruling reinforces the authority of civil courts to combat forgery by triggering criminal investigation when the forgery is committed outside the court's precincts, without the need for the cumbersome complaint procedure under BNSS.