Quashing Of FIR In Forgery Case When Handwriting Expert's Opinion Is Pending Is Unjustified : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has set aside a Himachal Pradesh High Court judgment which quashed an FIR alleging a large-scale conspiracy involving forgery, cheating and misappropriation of property, holding that the High Court acted prematurely while the investigation, including forensic examination of disputed documents, was still underway.

Allowing appeals filed by the complainant Sharla Bazliel and the State of Himachal Pradesh, a Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta restored the FIR and directed the investigating agency to complete the probe expeditiously.

“…where allegations of forgery are set out in the FIR and 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 Court observed.

“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 by exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.”, the court added.

The prosecution's case was that the Respondents-accused persons have committed forgery by forging the signatures of the appellant-complainant's father and fraudulently projected themselves as his nominees, thereby misappropriating the monies from the bank accounts of the appellant-complainant's father.

When the SFSL report confirmed the complainant's allegations, the disputed documents were sought to be examined by a handwriting expert, whose report is awaited.

The High Court had quashed the FIR at the very threshold when the investigation was in full swing and vital material was yet to be collected, calling the FIR to have been lodged on the basis of speculations.

Aggrieved by the High Court's decision, the complainant appealed to the Supreme Court.

Setting aside the High Court's decision, the judgment authored by Justice Mehta noted that the High Court erred in prematurely interfering with the investigation, when the handwriting report was awaited.

The Court said that when “the questioned documents having already been forwarded for examination, the proof of forgery would evidently depend upon the outcome of the comparison to be conducted by the handwriting expert. Thus, the aspects relating to the creation of false documents and the commission of forgery were still under investigation when the High Court prematurely proceeded to quash the FIR.”

“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 by the exercise of powers under Sections 482 CrPC or Article 226 of the Constitution of India”, the court added.

Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the investigation was directed to be continued. Also, the trial court was directed to proceed with the trial upon the filing of the charge sheet.

Cause Title: SHARLA BAZLIEL VERSUS BALDEV THAKUR AND OTHERS

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 256

Click here to download judgment

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) :Mrs. Pragya Baghel, AOR Mr. Yuvraj Kashyap, Adv. Ms. Natasha Dalmia, AOR

For Respondent(s) :Mr. Siddharth Dave, Sr. Adv. Mr. Satya Mitra, AOR Mr. Nikhil Goel, Sr. Adv. Mr. Deepak Bashta, Adv. Ms. Shagun Matta, AOR Ms. Vandana Sehgal, AOR Mr. Mohit Yadav, Adv. Mrs. Pragya Baghel, AOR Mr. Kartikeya Rastogi, D.A.G. Mr. Akshay Girish Ringe, AOR Ms. Inderdeep Kaur Raina, Adv. Ms. Tamanna Kavdia, Adv