Civil Suit Dismissal Does Not Bar Criminal Investigation Alleging Forged Deed: Calcutta High Court

The bench rejecting the argument that the dispute was purely civil, held that allegations of forging a registered document, using forged seals of a public office, and employing such documents for wrongful gain squarely attract criminal liability and warrant investigation.

Justice Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee observed, “In the instant case on a careful reading of the materials available in the record and in the case diary, it cannot be said that the complaint does not disclose the commission of an any cognizable offence by the petitioners or the allegation of forgery is absent. Now whether such allegations are correct or not has to be decided but simply because the civil court has dismissed a suit filed by other heirs of original owner on different considerations, that does not by itself cloth the court to come to a conclusion that civil remedy is only remedy and the initiation of the criminal proceeding in any manner will be abuse of the process of court, and therefore it calls for exercising inherent power of the High Court under section 482 Cr. P.C for quashing such proceedings”.

“Therefore when the materials relied upon by the complainant are required to be investigated and proved, no inference can be drawn on the basis of submissions made by the petitioners to conclude the complaint to be unacceptable against the petitioners. Therefore, I am of the view that the FIR in question should be fully investigated and thereafter further legal consequences as may be warranted should be allowed to take effect”, the bench further noted.

Advocate Kunaljit Bhattacharjee appeared for the petitioner and Advocate Aditi Shankar Chakraborty appeared for the respondent.

In the matter a complaint was filed alleging that the petitioners, along with other accused, conspired to grab ancestral property by relying on a purported sale deed dated 7-04-1963. The complainant claimed that the deed was forged, that the vendors and vendee mentioned therein had no nexus with the actual property, and that forged seals and signatures of the registry office were used.

The petitioners contended that the dispute was purely civil in nature, relying heavily on the dismissal of Title Suit by a civil court, where the plaintiffs had failed to establish that the deed was fraudulent. They argued that continuation of the criminal proceedings amounted to abuse of process.

Therefore, a criminal revision petition was filed under Section 482 CrPC, seeking quashing of an FIR registered under Sections 465, 467, 468, 471, 420 and 120B of the IPC.

Now, the bench examined the civil court judgment and noted that while an issue regarding the validity of the 1963 deed had been framed, the civil court did not return any categorical finding on whether the deed was genuine or forged. The suit was dismissed on procedural and evidentiary grounds, including failure to properly prove secondary evidence, rather than on a definitive adjudication of the deed’s authenticity.

The Court emphasised that no competent civil court had conclusively ruled on the genuineness of the disputed deed, and therefore, the petitioners could not claim immunity from criminal prosecution on that basis.

While dismissing the quashing petition, the Court directed that the investigation be concluded expeditiously, noting that the matter had remained pending for a considerable period.

Cause Title: Pradip Agarwal & Anr. v. The State of West Bengal & Anr. CRR 339 of 2024

Appearances:

Petitioner: Kunaljit Bhattacharjee, Sandeep Dutta, Alok Sah, Advocates.

Respondents: Aditi Shankar Chakraborty, Abhijit Sarkar, Bhaskar Roy Mahashaya, Niranjan R, Advocates.

Click here to read/download the Judgment