Back
High Court Reverses Course: Quashed Forgery FIR Revived Over Missed Expert Evidence
In a significant ruling on criminal procedure, the has allowed a review petition filed by Rajkumar Budhrani , recalling a May 2025 order that quashed an FIR alleging cheating and forgery. Justice Vishal Mishra held that the original bench overlooked a pivotal handwriting expert report, fitting an exception to the strict bar on reviews under (now ). The case restores Misc. Criminal Case No. 5667 of 2025 for fresh hearing.
Forgery Allegations and a Quashed Probe
The saga began with Crime No. 62 of 2025 at , where Budhrani accused parties—including respondent No. 2—of cheating under and forgery offenses under . The allegations centered on fabricated documents bearing Budhrani's forged signatures, including those of his brother.
A coordinate bench quashed the FIR on
via powers under
(equivalent to
). Budhrani, the original complainant, challenged this in
Review Petition No. 2454 of 2025
, arguing the court ignored a
, report from the
. This report, submitted before the order while the matter was reserved, concluded:
"Above mentioned differences in the writing characteristics are beyond the range of natural variations... prove the opinion of different authorship."
Budhrani escalated to the Supreme Court via Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 11356 of 2025 , which was withdrawn on with explicit liberty to seek review.
Clash Over Finality: Review or No-Go?
Respondent No. 2, represented by Senior Advocate Sanjay Agrawal , fiercely opposed maintainability. Citing , they argued courts become post-judgment, allowing reviews only for clerical errors—not substantive merits. Reliance was placed on and , emphasizing no circumvention via Section 482 powers.
Budhrani's counsel countered that the expert report—handed to court on
via police requisition and highlighted in the State's Supreme Court affidavit—went unconsidered despite availability. This caused prejudice, invoking a
Vikram Bakshi
exception:
"A mistake on the part of court caused prejudice to a party."
The Supreme Court's liberty sealed maintainability.
Navigating the Bar: Exceptions Trump Finality
Justice Mishra framed the core issue:
"whether the review petition is maintainable against the final order passed in the criminal proceedings, once the Court becomes
... in terms of Section 362 of CrPC/403 of BNSS."
Drawing from
Vikram Bakshi
, the court reiterated the general bar but highlighted exceptions, including where a court's mistake prejudices a party, provided the ground wasn't consciously omitted earlier. Here, the report's non-consideration—
"a material document which... goes to the root of the case"
—directly prejudiced Budhrani. As noted in secondary reports, the bench emphasized:
"the petitioner has made a case for review... by not considering the expert report submitted before the Court which has a critical significance in the matter."
This aligns with procedural review principles, distinguishing it from barred substantive re-litigation.
Key Observations from the Bench
"The said report is a material document which was required to be considered by the Court while dealing with the criminal case seeking quashment of FIR as the report goes to the root of the case."(Para 12)
"If the aforesaid observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court are taken note of, then it is apparently clear that power of review in criminal cases can be exercised only in exceptional circumstances."(Para 10)
"...the mistake on the part of the Court has caused prejudice to the petitioner by not considering the expert report..."(Para 14)
"In view whereof... this Court deems it appropriate to recall the said order dated..."(Para 15)
FIR Back in Play: Broader Ripples for Fraud Probes
The review stands allowed:
"The order dated
passed in MCrC No. 5667 of 2025 is recalled. MCrC No. 5667 of 2025 is restored to be heard on merits."
This decision reinforces rare but vital exceptions to review bars, particularly in forgery cases hinging on forensic evidence. Complainants now have clearer precedent to flag overlooked material documents, potentially deterring hasty quashments and bolstering probes into signature frauds common in cheating disputes. The restored petition heads to the rostered bench, promising deeper scrutiny of the allegations.
