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

In a significant ruling that clarifies the interplay between civil and criminal proceedings, the Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that a civil court possesses inherent power under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure ( CPC ) to direct the police to register a First Information Report (FIR) for forgery. The judgment, delivered by Justice Gajendra Singh on September 11, 2026, also reaffirms that when forgery is committed outside the court's precincts, a preliminary inquiry under Section 379 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita ( BNS S ), 2023 is not a prerequisite for such a direction.

A Powerful Precedent: Civil Courts Can Direct FIRs in Forgery Cases

The court dismissed a petition filed under Section 528 of BNS S seeking to quash an FIR registered against four individuals for alleged forgery of a will. The petitioners argued that the criminal proceedings were barred because the alleged forgery pertained to a document produced in a civil suit, and therefore, the trial court should have followed the complaint procedure under Section 379 BNS S instead of directing a police FIR.

The Genesis: A Family Feud Over Land and a Forged Will

The case originated from a family dispute over agricultural land in Dhar district. Petitioners Himmat Singh and Narendra Singh, along with two others, were sued by their sisters (respondents) in a civil suit for declaration of title. During the suit, the defendants produced a will dated February 19, 2019, allegedly executed by their father. The civil court, after trial, held that the will was forged and created after the suit was filed. In its judgment dated July 28, 2026, the civil court directed the police to register an FIR against the petitioners. Consequently, Crime No. 242/2026 was registered under Sections 61(2), 336(3), 338, and 340(2) of BNS .

Petitioners' Plea: Why a Criminal FIR Cannot Follow a Civil Finding

The petitioners challenged the FIR on multiple grounds. They argued that a civil suit is decided on the standard of preponderance of probabilities, while a criminal case requires proof beyond reasonable doubt. They contended that the trial court's finding of forgery was not final and could not be the sole basis for a criminal prosecution. Further, they submitted that since the will was produced in court, the offence fell under Section 215(1)(b) read with Section 379 of BNS S , which mandates that only the court can make a written complaint for offences relating to documents produced in evidence. The petitioners also argued that the direction to register an FIR violated principles of natural justice as they were never given an opportunity to defend against criminal allegations in the civil suit.

State's Stand: Fraud Must Be Investigated

The state opposed the petition, submitting that the petitioners had jointly committed fraud and forgery, and the civil court had rightly directed the registration of an FIR to ensure that the culprits do not escape.

The Court's Analysis: Distinguishing In-Court and Out-of-Court Forgery

Justice Gajendra Singh examined the core legal issue: whether a civil court can direct registration of an FIR for forgery, and whether the procedure under Section 379 BNS S is mandatory in such cases. Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Sachida Nand Singh v. State of Bihar (1998) , the High Court drew a critical distinction. The Supreme Court had held that Section 340 CrPC (the predecessor of Section 379 BNS S ) applies only to offences that affect the administration of justice—those committed when the document is "in custodia legis" (in the court's custody). If the forgery was committed outside the court, long before the document was produced, it does not affect the administration of justice, and there is no bar on the police registering a case.

The court further observed that while the Code of Civil Procedure does not expressly empower a civil court to direct an FIR, Section 151 CPC provides inherent powers to the court to make orders necessary for the "ends of justice." The High Court cited the Constitution Bench decision in Manohar Lal Chopra v. Rai Bahadur Rao Raja Seth Hiralal ( AIR 1962 SC 527 ) to affirm that inherent jurisdiction cannot be exercised to nullify any provision of the Code, but there is no prohibition against issuing such a direction.

Key Quotes: Unearthing Fraud Knows No Barriers

The judgment contains several powerful observations that underscore the court's stance:

> "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."

> "When the Code itself recognizes the existence of the inherent power of the Court, there is no question of implying any powers outside the limits of the Code. Thus, there is no prohibition for Civil Court to exercise its inherent jurisdiction for direction to forward a complaint."

> "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 has become necessary for this Court to clarify that in appropriate cases, the Civil Court has got power to issue a direction to a party or to a witness to forward a complaint to the police. This measure alone shall send an appropriate message to the intending wrong doers so that the fraud and forgery could be curtailed."

Final Verdict: Petition Dismissed, FIR Stays

Dismissing the petition, the High Court held that the civil court had acted within its inherent powers, and the registration of the FIR was valid. The court emphasized that the criminal investigation must be allowed to proceed to bring the alleged offenders to justice. The ruling reinforces the principle that civil courts are not powerless when confronted with clear evidence of fraud, and they can take proactive steps to ensure that criminal conduct does not go unpunished. This decision is likely to have far-reaching implications for cases where forgery is detected during civil litigation, providing a clear mechanism for courts to refer such matters for criminal investigation.