The Madhya Pradesh High Court at Indore has clarified that a civil court can, in appropriate cases, use its inherent powers under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to direct the forwarding of a complaint concerning alleged forgery to the police. Justice Gajendra Singh observed that there is no express or implied prohibition preventing a civil court from issuing such a direction where allegations of forgery arise.
The ruling came while the High Court considered a plea seeking quashing of an FIR arising from a family property dispute involving an allegedly fabricated will. The Court held that since the alleged forgery in the present case was committed outside the court, the special procedure under Section 379 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, concerning offences connected with documents produced or given in evidence before a court, did not prevent the police from registering the case.
Background
The proceedings arose from a dispute between members of the same family concerning agricultural land in Dhar district. Two sisters had filed a civil suit seeking a declaration of title over the disputed property before the 2nd Civil Judge, Senior Division, Dharampuri.
During the civil proceedings, a will was produced claiming to have been executed by their father in favour of one of the petitioners. In its judgment dated July 28, 2026, the civil court recorded a finding that the will had been fabricated after the institution of the civil suit and directed that an FIR be registered. Consequently, Crime No. 242/2026 was registered at Dharampuri Police Station under Sections 61(2), 336(3), 338 and 340(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
The petitioners approached the High Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking quashing of the FIR. They argued, among other things, that because the disputed document had been produced in the civil proceedings, the procedure under Section 379 of the BNSS should have been followed instead of directing registration of a police case.
Justice Gajendra Singh considered whether a preliminary inquiry under Section 379 of the BNSS was necessary before criminal proceedings could be initiated.
The Court relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Sachida Nand Singh v. State of Bihar, explaining that the special procedure applies where the alleged act affecting the administration of justice concerns a document while it is in the custody of the court.
The High Court then made an important factual distinction in the present case.
“In this case, the forgery was committed out side of the Court. Accordingly, it was not required to conduct preliminary enquiry as per Section 340 (1) of Cr.P.C., 1973/corresponding section 379 of BNSS, 2023 and there can be no impediment for the police to register the case.”
Thus, the Court found that the fact that the disputed will was subsequently produced before the civil court did not, by itself, bring the alleged fabrication within the special procedural restriction.
The High Court also examined whether a civil court could direct a complaint concerning alleged forgery to be forwarded to the police.
Justice Singh noted that although the Code of Civil Procedure does not expressly provide a specific provision authorising a civil court to direct a party or witness to approach the police, there is no express or implied prohibition against such a direction in an appropriate case. The Court referred to the inherent powers available under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
The Court observed:
“There is no prohibition for Civil Court to exercise its inherent jurisdiction for direction to forward a complaint.”
The High Court further stated that courts should not be prevented from taking appropriate steps where allegations of forgery arise, particularly when such action is considered necessary to serve the ends of justice.
Concluding that the alleged fabrication had taken place outside the court and that there was no procedural bar preventing police registration of the case, the High Court held that there was no scope to quash FIR Crime No. 242/2026.
Bench accordingly dismissed the petition.
Case Details
- Case Title: Himmat Singh and Others v. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others
- Case Number: Misc. Criminal Case No. 39618 of 2026
- Judge: Justice Gajendra Singh
- Heard On: August 19, 2026
- Decision Date: September 11, 2026
