MP High Court: Civil Court Can Direct Forgery FIR

• The MP High Court affirmed a civil court's power to direct a police FIR for forgery discovered during civil proceedings.
• This ruling applies when the forgery of a document, such as a will, occurred outside the court's custody, prior to its presentation in the civil suit.
• The court dismissed a plea to quash an FIR against four family members accused of forging their father's will, which surfaced in a land title dispute.
• Referencing Supreme Court precedents, the High Court clarified that no preliminary court inquiry is needed for such "outside custody" forgeries.
• Civil courts can use their inherent powers under Section 151 CPC to direct criminal action against serious fraud like forgery.

This means that civil courts are not merely passive arbiters of disputes but can actively initiate criminal action when serious fraud, like will forgery, is detected.

The Madhya Pradesh High Court, specifically its Indore Bench, recently affirmed the authority of a civil court to order the registration of a First Information Report (FIR) in cases of forgery, even when the alleged fraud comes to light during ongoing civil proceedings. This significant ruling came as the court dismissed a petition filed by four family members who sought to quash an FIR accusing them of forging their deceased father's will. The petitioners, Himmat Singh, Narendra Singh, Shivraj Singh, and Dharmendra Singh, faced criminal charges after a civil court determined a will they presented was fraudulent.

The dispute originated from a civil suit initiated by the petitioners' sisters before the 2nd Civil Judge, Senior Division, Dharampuri. The sisters were seeking a declaration of title over agricultural land located in villages Lunhera Khurd and Pipalnakgarhi. In their defense, the brothers introduced a will, purportedly executed by their father, Shersingh, on February 19, 2019. This document named Narendra Singh as the beneficiary, with Shivraj Singh and Dharmendra Singh listed as attesting witnesses. However, the trial court, on July 28, 2026, concluded that the will had been forged subsequent to its filing in the civil suit. Consequently, the court directed the police to register an FIR against the petitioners and any other individuals found to be involved in the fraudulent act. Police subsequently registered Crime No. 242/2026 at Police Station Dharampuri, Dhar district, under sections 61(2), 336(3), 338, and 340(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) 2023, which correspond to Sections 120B, 468, 467, and 471 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

Before the High Court, counsel for the petitioners, Aditya Verma, mounted a challenge against the FIR, arguing that a finding based on a "preponderance of probabilities" in civil proceedings could not serve as the sole basis for a criminal prosecution, which demands a higher standard of "proof beyond reasonable doubt." A central contention was that since the will was presented as evidence during the pendency of the civil suit, the case should fall under the purview of Section 215(1)(b) read with Section 379 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) 2023. These provisions, according to the petitioners, mandate that allegations of forgery concerning documents produced in court must proceed via a written complaint from that specific court, rather than a direct police FIR. Further arguments included claims that adverse findings were recorded without a proper hearing, violating Article 21 of the Constitution, and that the matter was essentially a family property dispute being unfairly criminalized.

However, State counsel Romil Verma countered these arguments, asserting that the petitioners had engaged in joint fraud and forgery, and that the trial court's directive for FIR registration was entirely appropriate. The High Court, in its examination of the legal framework, referenced the Supreme Court's landmark decision in *Sachida Nand Singh vs. State of Bihar*. This precedent clarifies that the statutory bar on private complaints, which requires a court to initiate proceedings for offenses committed in relation to documents produced in court, applies exclusively when the offense occurs while the document is under the court's custody, or "custodia legis." The High Court determined that in the present case, the alleged forgery was committed outside the court's purview, prior to its submission in the civil suit. This distinction was crucial, as it meant no preliminary inquiry under Section 340(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) 1973 (or its corresponding Section 379 of BNSS 2023) was necessary, thus removing any impediment for the police to register the criminal case directly.

Beyond the specifics of the forgery's timing, the High Court also addressed the fundamental question of whether a civil court possesses the authority to direct the registration of an FIR. Drawing upon the Constitution Bench ruling of the Supreme Court in *Manohar Lal Chopra vs. Rai Bahadur Rao Raja Seth Hiralal*, the court unequivocally affirmed this power. The ruling highlighted that a civil court's inherent powers, enshrined in Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), extend to directing a party or witness to lodge a complaint with the police when a serious offense, such as forgery, is alleged. The rationale behind this is rooted in the understanding that forgery constitutes a form of fraud, and courts inherently possess the power to uncover such deceit and ensure that those responsible are brought to justice. This interpretation underscores the judiciary's broader responsibility to maintain the integrity of legal processes and deter fraudulent activities that undermine justice.

This ruling by the Madhya Pradesh High Court carries significant implications for civil litigation, particularly concerning documents whose authenticity is challenged. It clarifies that when an act of forgery occurs outside the direct custody of the court, even if discovered during civil proceedings, the path to criminal prosecution via a police FIR remains open and direct. This means that civil courts are not merely passive arbiters of disputes but can actively initiate criminal action when serious fraud, like will forgery, is detected. The decision reinforces the principle that the origin of the forgery—whether before or during judicial custody—is a critical determinant in the procedural requirements for initiating criminal proceedings.

Lawyers should advise clients that the inherent power of a civil court to direct an MP High Court civil court direct forgery FIR can significantly impact litigation strategies involving suspicious documents, increasing the exposure for individuals who commit fraudulent acts. This ruling serves as a strong deterrent against the use of forged documents in civil suits, emphasizing that such actions can lead to swift criminal prosecution in India, bypassing the often lengthier process of a court-initiated complaint for forgery outside court custody.

This ruling clarifies that forgery discovered in civil proceedings, if committed outside court custody, can lead to direct criminal prosecution via police FIR, bypassing the need for a court complaint. Lawyers should advise clients that civil courts possess inherent power to direct such criminal action, impacting litigation strategy involving suspicious documents and increasing exposure for fraudulent acts.

Source: Original reporting via legal news portal.