High Court Cannot Quash FIR for Forgery When Handwriting Expert's Report Is Still Awaited: Supreme Court

"Where Allegations of Forgery Are Set Out in the FIR and the Investigating Agency Has Forwarded Disputed Documents to a Handwriting Expert, Quashing Without Awaiting the Report Is Totally Unjustified", Supreme Court has set aside a Himachal Pradesh High Court order quashing an FIR lodged for alleged forgery, cheating and criminal conspiracy to grab ancestral property, holding that the High Court had acted prematurely in exercising its inherent powers when the investigation was in full swing and the forensic handwriting examination was still pending.

A bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta allowed the appeals filed by the original complainant Sharla Bazliel and the State of Himachal Pradesh, directing the Investigating Officer to complete the investigation and file the final report at the earliest.

Background

The complainant Sharla Bazliel alleged that three accused persons — Baldev Thakur, Daljit Singh and Jienpuri Kamsuon — entered into a criminal conspiracy to grab the ancestral property and bank deposits of her father Dr. G.B. Bazliel.

According to the FIR, her father developed severe depression after her mother's death in 2013. Taking advantage of his deteriorating physical and mental health, the accused allegedly isolated him from his family. Daljit Singh was fraudulently appointed as nominee in her father's bank accounts, and the family's agricultural land of nearly 51 bighas in Shimla district was sold to Baldev Thakur through a registered sale deed for Rs. 3.90 crore — with a false recital that all legal heirs had given NOC, which they had not.

After her father's death — in mysterious circumstances at a hotel owned by Baldev Thakur — Daljit Singh approached UCO Bank claiming to be the nominee of the father, closed his savings account and transferred Rs. 5,74,526 to his own account. A total of Rs. 1,23,74,526 was alleged to have been misappropriated from her father's bank accounts.

FIR No. 8 of 2022 was registered at Police Station State CID, Shimla for offences under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC. The accused filed a petition under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of the FIR.

During the hearing of the quashing petition, the Investigating Officer filed a status report flagging grave discrepancy between the rates in the sale deeds and prevailing circle rates, indicating fraud in the circle-rate documents. The disputed documents were forwarded to the State Forensic Science Laboratory, Junga for handwriting examination on 27.02.2023.

Despite being informed that the SFSL examination was underway, the High Court quashed the FIR on 08.01.2024, holding that the ingredients of fraud, misrepresentation and forgery were not made out and that the allegations were speculative.

High Court Was Premature — Expert Report Was Pending

The Supreme Court found the High Court's exercise of inherent powers wholly unjustified given the stage at which it intervened.

"Where allegations of forgery are set out in the FIR and the Investigating Agency has undertaken the exercise of getting the disputed documents examined through the handwriting expert, an order quashing the FIR without awaiting the outcome of the handwriting expert's report would be totally unjustified," the bench held.

The Court noted pointedly that the High Court had itself recorded in its order that the questioned documents had been forwarded to the SFSL for analysis. Yet it proceeded to quash the FIR without waiting for the outcome.

"Once the Court was apprised that investigation into the genuineness of the signatures on the disputed/questioned documents was being undertaken and the signatures were in the process of being analysed by the SFSL, there was no reason whatsoever for the High Court to have proceeded to quash the FIR," the bench said.

The Court held that proof of forgery would evidently depend upon the outcome of the comparison to be conducted by the handwriting expert. Quashing before that outcome was received was the classic case of stifling a prosecution at the threshold.

SFSL Reports Confirmed Forgery

What made the High Court's order even more difficult to sustain was the fact that subsequent SFSL reports — dated 27.06.2024 and 31.08.2024 — had now confirmed exactly what the investigation had suspected.

The Supreme Court noted that the SFSL reports established that the signatures on the nomination documents and the bank account closure documents were facsimile stamps — not the handwritten signatures of the complainant's father. The admitted specimen signatures did not match the questioned signatures.

The investigation further disclosed that Baldev Thakur had used false circle-rate documents to undervalue the property — paying stamp duty of only Rs. 32,04,000 instead of the legally payable Rs. 67,91,241, thereby causing a loss of Rs. 35,87,242 to the Government exchequer.

"Apparently, the investigation has resulted in credible evidence establishing that the documents on the strength whereof the properties were transferred in favour of the accused bore forged signatures," the Court observed.

Reliance on Mir Nagvi Askari Was Misplaced

The High Court had relied on this Court's judgment in Mir Nagvi Askari v. CBI, (2009) 15 SCC 643, to hold that the prosecution must prove that the accused had forged documents by creating false ones.

The Supreme Court rejected this reliance as inapplicable to the facts. The principle from Mir Nagvi Askari could only be applied after investigation was complete — not at a stage when the handwriting expert's report had not yet been received.

"The judgment in Mir Nagvi Askari was neither relevant nor applicable to the facts of the present case. Since the report of the handwriting expert had not yet been received, it was premature to record any finding on falsification of documents and forgery. In such circumstances, the prosecution of the accused persons could not have been stifled at the threshold," the Court held.

Prima Facie Case of Fraud and Criminal Misappropriation Made Out

On the specific allegation that the accused fraudulently posed as nominees of the complainant's father and usurped amounts from his and his deceased wife's bank accounts, the Court found a clear prima facie case.

"These allegations, prima facie, constitute the offence of fraud and criminal misappropriation. Hence, we are of the firm opinion that the allegations as set out in the FIR and the material collected by the Investigating Officer is amply sufficient to proceed against the accused," the bench declared.

The High Court's observation that the complainant had earlier filed an FIR against her own father was also addressed. The Court clarified that the earlier FIR pertained to a completely different allegation — that her father had attempted to usurp her grandfather's property — and had no bearing on the present case.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the High Court's order dated 08.01.2024, and directed the Investigating Officer to conclude the investigation and file the report under Section 173(2) CrPC / Section 193(3) BNSS before the concerned court at the earliest. The Court clarified that all observations were limited to the disposal of the present appeals and would not affect the rights and defences of the parties at trial.

Date of Decision: March 17, 2026