Addition Of Text Above Signature On Receipt Raises 'Grave Suspicion': Calcutta High Court Refuses To Discharge Forgery Accused
The Calcutta High Court has refused to interfere with a Magistrate's order rejecting discharge of two accused persons in a criminal case alleging forgery and cheating arising out of a land transaction, holding that at the stage of framing charge, the court is only required to assess whether prima facie materials disclose a “grave suspicion” and not conduct a mini-trial.
Dismissing the revision petition, Justice Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee observed that where the materials on record indicate possible alteration or tampering of documents, the matter must proceed to trial.
The case arose from a complaint lodged by the de facto complainant alleging that she had paid ₹1 lakh as advance to one seller for purchase of land, but later discovered that the property had been sold to the present petitioners. During pendency of a civil dispute, the petitioners allegedly offered ₹3.5 lakh as settlement and obtained her signatures on money receipts. She subsequently alleged that the petitioners fraudulently inserted additional text above her signatures to portray the payment as consideration for a different land transaction, and lodged an FIR alleging offences under Sections 420, 468, 471 and 34 IPC.
After investigation, police filed charge sheet and seized the two money receipts. A questioned document examiner's report noted “fraudulent symptoms” in alignment and positioning of the disputed texts and opined that the additional writings appeared to have been added later. Relying on these materials, the Magistrate rejected the petitioners' plea for discharge.
Before the High Court, the petitioners argued that the dispute was purely civil, the original documents were not properly seized, the expert's report could not be relied upon, and no specific role was attributed to one of the accused. They further contended that ingredients of cheating and forgery were absent and that the proceedings were initiated as a counterblast to an earlier complaint filed by them.
Opposing the plea, the State and the complainant submitted that the seizure of the receipts from the possession of one petitioner and the expert opinion showing subsequent insertions constituted sufficient incriminating material to proceed with the trial.
The Court examined the statutory scheme of forgery under Sections 463 and 464 IPC and referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Md. Ibrahim v. State of Bihar explaining what constitutes making a “false document”, as well as the principles governing discharge laid down in Sajjan Kumar v. CBI. It reiterated that at the stage of discharge the court must only see whether the materials disclose the ingredients of an offence and cannot meticulously evaluate evidence or determine guilt.
Applying these principles, the Court held that the seizure of the receipts from the conscious possession of one accused, the allegation of alteration after signatures, and the forensic observations suggesting later additions were sufficient to create a prima facie case. Whether the documents were actually tampered with, and the extent of each accused's involvement, were matters for trial. The Court also clarified that even if the document examiner was not cited as a witness, the trial court could summon such a witness under Section 311 CrPC.
Finding no illegality or perversity in the Magistrate's refusal to discharge the accused, the Court dismissed the revision petition while clarifying that its observations would not prejudice the trial.
Case: Gopal Banerjee & Anr. v. State of West Bengal & Anr.
Case No.: CRR 541 of 2025