While observing that it is not required to conduct a preliminary enquiry as per Section 340 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) when forgery is committed outside of Court, the Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that the Civil Courts can issue a direction to the police to register a case and initiate proceedings under Section 340.

The High Court was considering an application filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 for quashing of an FIR registered under Sections 61(2), 336(3), 338 and 340(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

The Single Bench of Justice Gajendra Singh held, “In this case, the forgery was committed out side of the Court. Accordingly, it was not required to conduct preliminary enquiry as per Section 340 (1) of Cr.P.C., 1973/corresponding section 379 of BNSS, 2023 and there can be no impediment for the police to register the case.”

“In my view, this is because of the reluctance of the Civil Courts to issue a direction to the police to register a case of forgery or in appropriate cases to initiate proceedings under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, of BNSS, 2023. Therefore, 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.”

Factual Background

The litigants (petitioners and respondents) are real brothers and sisters. The second and third Respondents filed a civil suit claiming declaration of title regarding agricultural land. The first and second Petitioners (defendants), along with the wife and children of the Petitioner, claimed that their father, Shersingh, had executed a will in favor of the second Petitioner, Narendra Singh, in the presence of the third Petitioner, Shivraj Singh and the fourth Petitioner, Dharmendra Singh. A Civil Judge recorded the finding that, after filing the suit, the will was forged. Himmatsingh (first petitioner), gave the land to the second petitioner, Narendra Singh, with the help of their relatives as attesting witnesses (third and fourth petitioners). An order was passed to lodge an FIR against the petitioners with a direction that if any other persons were found involved, they would also be made accused. Accordingly, a case came to be registered under Section 61(2), 336(3), 338 and 340(2) of the BNS, 2023.

Arguments

It was the case of the petitioners that the Civil Suit was decided on the standard of preponderance of probabilities and it is settled law that findings rendered in a civil proceeding and findings that are, by the trial Court's own admission, not final on the question of coercion/fraud qua one of the very persons named as an accused cannot form the sole and exclusive foundation for a criminal prosecution, which must independently satisfy the higher standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt.

Reasoning

Considering that forgery was committed outside of the Court, the Bench stated that it was not required to conduct a preliminary enquiry as per Section 340 (1) of the CrPC, and there could be no impediment for the police to register the case.

“Above all, 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. If the inherent powers by civil Court under Section 151 could not be exercised to such a situation, the phrase "ends of justice" as enumerated in Section 151 will not serve its purpose”, it stated.

The Bench made it clear that in appropriate cases, the Civil Court has the power to issue a direction to a party or to a witness to forward a complaint to the police. Finding no ground for quashing, the Bench dismissed the Petition.

Cause Title: Himmat Singh v. The State of Madhya Pradesh (Neutral Citation: 2026:MPHC-IND:25401)

Click here to read/download Order 



Tags: