Facts of the Case

  • Parties & Property: The petitioner No.1 is a tenant of a shop owned by respondent No.1. The dispute arose around a commercial premises situated at Rehari Colony, Jammu.
  • The Dispute over Documents: The respondents (landlords) approached the Sales Tax Department regarding the status of the shop and were provided a copy of a Rent Agreement and an electricity bill.
  • Allegation of Forgery: The respondents claimed they never executed this Rent Agreement. They alleged that the petitioners forged their signatures as landlord and marginal witness to fraudulently obtain a GST number and cheat the Sales Tax Department.
  • Private Complaint Filed: Based on this, the respondents filed a private criminal complaint under Sections 420, 467, 468, and 471 of the IPC.
  • Magistrate’s Action: The trial Court initially deferred process and directed the Police Station, Bakshi Nagar, Jammu, to conduct an inquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C to verify the truthfulness of the allegations. Following the police report, the trial Court took cognizance and issued summons to the petitioners on 19.03.2021.
  • Appeal to High Court: The petitioners moved the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C seeking quashment of the complaint and the summoning order.

Issues Involved

  • Whether the trial Court was legally justified in issuing process against the petitioners without a conclusive expert opinion on the alleged forged Rent Agreement during the Section 202 Cr.P.C inquiry.
  • Whether the criminal proceedings were initiated with malafide intentions to exact vengeance, resolve a private civil rent dispute, or force eviction/rent enhancement.

Petitioner’s Arguments

  • Malafide Motive: The petitioners argued that the criminal complaint was filed with ulterior motives to harass them and force them to either vacate the shop or agree to an exorbitant rent hike.
  • Reliance on Precedent: They placed reliance on the landmark Supreme Court ruling State of Haryana V/s Ch. Bhajan Lal (AIR 1992 SC 604), stating that criminal proceedings manifestly attended with malafide or personal grudge must be quashed.
  • Absence of Ingredients: They contended that the essential ingredients of cheating ($u/s$ 420 IPC) were missing since petitioner No.1 was an established, admitted tenant.
  • Disregard of Police Report: It was argued that the Magistrate passed a non-speaking order and completely ignored the fact that the Section 202 Cr.P.C police report failed to prove any offense against them.

Respondent’s Arguments

  • Prima Facie Case: The respondents maintained that the petitioners were running the shop as beneficiaries of a clearly fabricated Rent Agreement.
  • Intent to Deceive: They argued that the signatures of the landlord and the marginal witness were explicitly forged to mislead both the owners and the Sales Tax Department.
  • Sufficient Material: The respondents claimed that the documents on record and their preliminary statements on oath provided sufficient grounds for the Magistrate to establish a prima facie case and issue summons.

Court Order / Findings

  • Inadequate Inquiry: The High Court observed that when the trial Court ordered an inquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C, it was because it lacked satisfaction regarding the truthfulness of the complaint.
  • Lack of Expert Opinion: The core allegation centered on a forged Rent Deed. The High Court pointed out that the SHO of Police Station, Bakshi Nagar, failed to conduct an inquiry regarding the genuineness of the document or obtain an expert/handwriting opinion.
  • Order Set Aside: In the absence of an expert opinion, the trial court had no evidentiary basis to determine if the document was forged. Hence, the order issuing process dated 19.03.2021 was declared bad in law and set aside.
  • Remand back to Magistrate: The High Court remanded the matter back to the Magistrate, ordering the Inquiry Officer (SHO) to obtain an expert handwriting/document opinion before proceeding any further with the matter.

Important Clarification

 In criminal complaints involving allegations of document forgery (Sections 467, 468, 471 IPC), a Magistrate cannot blindly issue process based on a Section 202 Cr.P.C inquiry report if the police have failed to secure a scientific or forensic expert opinion regarding the questionable signatures. Taking cognizance of forgery without an expert's validation is legally unsustainable and subject to reversal under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

Sections Involved

  • Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C): Section 202 (Inquiry/Postponement of issue of process), Section 203 (Dismissal of complaint), and Section 482 (Inherent powers of the High Court).
  • Indian Penal Code (IPC): Section 420 (Cheating), Section 467 (Forgery of valuable security), Section 468 (Forgery for purpose of cheating), and Section 471 (Using as genuine a forged document).

Link to download the order -https://mytaxexpert.co.in/uploads/1782888059_2.pdf

Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.