Criminal Forgery Cannot Be Alleged Without Proof of Who Made the Document — Calcutta High Court Quashes Proceedings Against Tenant in Alleged Forgery Case

"When the Alleged Forged Document Is Already Subject of Civil Suit, Criminal Prosecution on Same Facts Amounts to Abuse of Process" —  Calcutta High Court, in a significant judgment allowed the criminal revision, quashing criminal proceedings initiated under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of the IPC for alleged forgery of a settlement letter relating to a tenanted shop. The Court held that there was no prima facie material to show that the petitioner authored or procured the alleged forged letter, and the matter was already subject of civil adjudication, rendering the continuation of the criminal case a manifest abuse of process.

"There is nothing to show that either the complainant or the prosecution agency has made out any prima facie case of criminality against the present petitioner... There is hardly any scope of establishing the charge of forgery as alleged," observed the Court, relying on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Sheila Sebastian v. R. Jawaharaj [(2018) 7 SCC 581].

Landlord–Tenant Dispute Leads to Criminal Allegation of Forgery

The petitioner, Smt. Kamala Devi Goyal, was a long-standing tenant of a shop room in premises at 54-A, Kali Krishna Tagore Street, Kolkata, since around 1975. In 2017, the landlord (respondent no. 2) filed an eviction suit, which was decreed ex parte in 2018. Possession was delivered to the landlord via execution proceedings on 13 December 2018.

However, days later, the landlord alleged that the petitioner forcibly re-entered the premises and relied on a purported settlement letter dated 20 December 2018, allegedly signed by the landlord, which stated that possession had been returned to the tenant upon payment of arrears and agreement to a new rent.

The landlord alleged this letter was a forged document and lodged an FIR on 26 November 2020, leading to GR Case No. 830 of 2020. The petitioner moved the High Court under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of the proceedings.

No Evidence That Petitioner Made or Procured the Alleged Forged Document

The Court undertook a detailed examination of the charge sheet and case diary and found no material to link the petitioner to the creation of the alleged forged letter.

"From the materials in the case diary and also from the written complaint I do not find any material that the instant petitioner... has prepared the allegedly forged letter. In fact, during investigation, maker of alleged false document was not found nor any investigation was done to that extent," noted Justice Mukherjee [Para 20].

Further, the letter was part of civil proceedings — namely, Title Suit No. 105 of 2019, where the genuineness of the letter was also under adjudication. The FIR was filed one and a half years after the civil court refused to vacate the injunction protecting the petitioner’s possession.

The Court observed: “The issue as to whether the letter dated 20.12.2018 is a forged document... is under consideration before the Civil Court... the present FIR also ought not to have been allowed to continue as it would prejudice the stand taken by parties in the civil suit.” [Para 21]

Citing the Supreme Court’s decision in Rajeshbhai Muljibhai Patel v. State of Gujarat [(2020) 3 SCC 794], the Court reiterated:

“When the issue as to the genuineness of the document is pending consideration in a civil suit, the FIR ought not to have been allowed to continue as it would prejudice the interest of the parties and the stand taken by them in the civil suit.”

Forgery Allegations Cannot Be Sustained Without Proving Who Created the Document

Emphasizing the core elements of forgery under Sections 463 and 464 IPC, the Court noted:

“To bring the offence within the four corners of the sections, the letter dated 20.12.2018 must be shown to have been created by the present petitioner with a view to making it appear that it was made by some person other than the person who the petitioner knows did not make it.” [Para 20]

Without any handwriting expert opinion, comparison of signatures, or proof that the petitioner authored or used the document knowing it was false, the ingredients for Sections 467, 468 or 471 IPC were not made out.

The Court found that no original document had been seized and secondary evidence alone could not justify criminal prosecution in a case requiring stringent proof:

“While the said copy of the letter may have been made admissible as secondary evidence in the civil suit... in the absence of seizure of the original document and without sending it for comparison... there is hardly any scope of establishing the charge of forgery.” [Para 24]

Criminal Process Used to Pressure Litigant in Civil Dispute

The Court found strong indication of mala fide intention in initiating the criminal case, observing that the FIR came long after the civil court refused to vacate the injunction protecting the tenant’s possession.

“Materials available reveal that... a frustrated landlord has initiated the impugned criminal proceeding, which if allowed to continue, would be an abuse of process of law.” [Para 22]

Justice Mukherjee quoted Chandanpal Singh v. Maharaj Singh [(1982) 1 SCC 466]:

“Chagrined and frustrated litigants should not be permitted to give vent to their frustration by cheaply invoking jurisdiction of the criminal court.”

On Second FIR and Territorial Jurisdiction: Not Barred, But Irrelevant to Petitioner’s Role

The Court rejected the argument that the FIR was barred as a second FIR, clarifying that the earlier complaint was under different provisions and not treated as an FIR.

It also clarified that territorial jurisdiction could not be the sole ground for quashment at the investigative stage, referring to Section 156(2) CrPC.

However, since no prima facie case existed against the petitioner, these procedural aspects became secondary.

Criminal Proceedings Quashed as Abuse of Process

Finding no direct allegation, no link between petitioner and document creation, and the matter already under civil adjudication, the Court held that the continuation of criminal prosecution would be an abuse of the court's process.

“I have every reason to believe that further continuance of the instant proceeding before the court below against the present petitioner will be a mere abuse of process of the court, as at the end of trial, conviction... is bleak.” [Para 25]

Accordingly, the Court allowed the revision: The impugned proceeding... is quashed qua Smt. Kamala Devi Goyal.” [Para 26]

Date of Decision: 10 June 2025