The Madhya Pradesh High Court at Indore has clarified that a Civil Court in appropriate cases involving allegations of serious forgery has the inherent power to direct a party, witness to forward their complaint to the police for registration of FIR invoking its inherent jurisdiction provided under Section 151 CPC.  [2026 LiveLaw (MP) 376]

The bench of Justice Gajendra Singh observed that the said power can be traced to the court's inherent jurisdiction and that there is neither an express nor an implied prohibition against such a direction. 

"Now, come to the availability of powers of trial Court regarding power to direct registration of FIR. Of course, it is true that there is no express provision in the Civil Procedure Code specifically empowering a Civil Court to issue a direction either to a party or to a witness to make a complaint to the police. But at the same time, it needs to be noted that there is no prohibition, either express or implied, thereby prohibiting a Civil Court from issuing any direction to a party or a witness to forward a complaint to the police when a serious offence of forgery is alleged". 

The court further clarified that accused persons in forgery cases generally approach the High Court seeking to quash the FIR on the ground that the dispute is essentially civil. In some cases, the High Court may quash the criminal proceedings on that basis, which leads to the offender escaping the "clutches of law".

The bench highlighted;

"In my view, this is because of the reluctance of the Civil Courts to issue a direction to the police to register a case of forgery or in appropriate cases to initiate proceedings under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973/ 379 of BNSS, 2023. Therefore, it has become necessary for this Court to clarify that in appropriate cases, the Civil Court has got power to issue a direction to a party or to a witness to forward a complaint to the police. This measure alone shall send an appropriate message to the intending wrong doers so that the fraud and forgery could be curtailed". 

The court referred to the Supreme Court's Constitution Bench decision in Manohar Lal Chopra Vs. Rai Bahadur Rao Raja Seth Hiralal (1962), where it was held that the inherent jurisdiction of the Court to make an order ex debito justitiae is undoubtedly affirmed by Section 151 of the Code, but that jurisdiction cannot be exercised so as to nullify the provisions of the Code.

"When the Code itself recognizes the existence of the inherent power of the Court, there is no question of implying any powers outside the limits of the Code. Thus, there is no prohibition for Civil Court to exercise its inherent jurisdiction for direction to forward a complaint. Above all, forgery is a fraud and so the power of the Court, to unearth the fraud and to bring to book the culprits shall find no barriers. If the inherent powers by civil Court under Section 151 could not be exercised to such a situation, the phrase "ends of justice" as enumerated in Section 151 will not serve its purpose," the court added. 

The court made these observations while dismissing a petition seeking quashing of an FIR registered at Dharampuri Police Station for criminal conspiracy (Section 61), forgery for cheating (Section 336), forgery of valuable security or will (Section 338), and using a forged document as genuine (Section 340) of the BNS.

The FIR followed a direction issued by the Civil Court after it found that a will relied upon by the petitioners in a title dispute was forged.

The case arose from a family dispute concerning agricultural land. Petitioner 1 and 2 and Respondents 2 and 3 are siblings. Respondents 2 and 3, Sisters, filed a civil suit claiming a declaration of title. The suit was registered before the Second Civil Judge, Senior Division, in Dharampur. 

During the proceedings, the brothers (petitioners 1 and 2) relied on a will claimed to have been executed by their father in favour of petitioner no. 2 and in the presence of the petitioners. 3 and 4.

However, in its judgment of July 28 the Civil Judge found that the will was forged after the institution of the civil suit and directed the registration of an FIR against the petitioners and other involved persons. Accordingly, an FIR was registered. 

Section 215(1)(b) bars courts from taking cognizance of certain offences against public justice or related to documents given in evidence in court proceedings, except on written complaint of that specific court or an office authorized by it. 

Section 379 of the BNSS sets the rules for handling offences against public justice, such as perjury or fabricating false evidence. 

The court first examined whether a forgery case relating to a document produced in court necessarily had to be initiated through the procedure corresponding to Section 340 CrPC/379 BNSS. 

Referring to the Apex Court case of Sachinda Nand Singh v. State of Bihar [1998 SCC Cri 660], it was held that Section 195(1)(b)(ii), which bars the court from taking cognizance of forgery offences affecting the administration of justice without written complaint by the concerned court, does not apply if the forgery of the document was committed before the document was produced or given in evidence in court. 

The court noted that provisions in Chapter 26 are meant for offences that affect the administration of justice, while the document is in the court's records. An act of forgery committed long before filing, outside the court's precincts, cannot be protected merely because it later entered the court record. 

The court noted that in the present case, forgery was committed outside of the court. Accordingly, the bench held that preliminary enquiry was not required to be conducted under Section 340(1) CrPC and there can be no impediment for the police to register the case. 

Refusing to quash the FIR the court dismissed the petition.  

Case Title: Himmat Singh v State of Madhya Pradesh

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (MP) 376

For Petitioner: Advocate Aditya Verma

For State: Romil Verma

Click here to read/download the Order