Civil Dispute Over Title Cannot Shield Allegations Of Forgery; Criminal Probe Must Continue: Calcutta High Court Refuses To Quash FIR

The Calcutta High Court has held that the mere pendency or dismissal of civil proceedings over property title does not bar criminal prosecution where serious allegations of forgery, fabrication of public records, and conspiracy are disclosed. Refusing to quash an FIR alleging use of a forged 1963 sale deed to grab land and secure bank loans, the Court observed that questions relating to genuineness of documents and criminal intent must be investigated and cannot be short-circuited under Section 482 CrPC.

Justice Dr. Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee dismissed a criminal revision petition filed by two purchasers of the disputed property, holding that the allegations prima facie disclose cognizable offences including forgery and cheating, and therefore warrant a full investigation.

The Court reiterated that while exercising inherent powers for quashing, the High Court cannot sift evidence or test the truthfulness of allegations. Unless the prosecution is manifestly malicious or legally untenable, criminal proceedings should not be stifled at the threshold.

The case arose from a complaint lodged by the de facto complainant alleging that the petitioners, along with other accused, conspired to grab ancestral property by relying on a forged sale deed bearing No. 3022 dated April 7, 1963. It was alleged that the accused fabricated the deed using forged registry seals and signatures and then used it as a genuine document to transfer land, obtain bank loans, and cause wrongful loss to the complainant and his siblings.

According to the complaint, upon inquiry at the registry office, no such deed corresponding to the disputed property or parties was found. A certified copy of the actual deed bearing the same number reportedly pertained to entirely different parties and land in another mouza. The complainant further claimed that the alleged execution date fell on a Sunday, raising doubts about registration, and that signatures of witnesses on the purported deed did not match admitted signatures.

The petitioners, however, argued that the dispute was purely civil in nature. They contended that the original owners had validly sold part of the land in 1963 to one Shankar Chourasia, who later mortgaged the property to IDBI Bank. After the borrower defaulted, the petitioners claimed to have cleared the dues through a one-time settlement and subsequently purchased portions of the land for valuable consideration. They also relied heavily on dismissal of a prior civil suit (Title Suit No. 125 of 2012) where heirs of the original owners had challenged the deed, arguing that the civil court's findings validated the transaction.

Rejecting this submission, the High Court examined the civil court judgment and noted that the trial court had not conclusively adjudicated upon the genuineness of the 1963 deed. Rather, the suit had failed for want of proof and procedural shortcomings, including issues relating to admissibility of secondary evidence. The Court clarified that dismissal of the civil suit did not amount to a declaration that the deed was genuine.

The Court emphasised that criminal allegations of forging a public document, using forged seals, and conspiring to cheat are matters requiring investigation. It held that simply because civil remedies exist or have been pursued does not mean criminal law cannot be set in motion.

Observing that the complaint and witness statements disclose a prima facie case of forgery and conspiracy, the Court held that it cannot be said at this stage that continuation of proceedings would amount to abuse of process. Questions about whether the deed is genuine or forged must be determined through investigation and trial, not in a quashing petition.

Accordingly, the High Court refused to interfere and directed that the investigation be completed expeditiously.

Case Details: Pradip Agarwal & Anr. v. State of West Bengal & Anr.

Case No: CRR 339 of 2024

Click here to read order