The Supreme Court restored criminal proceedings against the accused by setting aside the High Court's order that discharged her at the charging stage, emphasizing that framing charges under Section 227 CrPC requires only prima facie satisfaction based on materials on record, not proof beyond reasonable doubt. The Court clarified that absence of the original document alleged to be forged does not automatically invalidate the chargesheet if other evidence discloses a prima facie case for forgery, cheating, and criminal conspiracy.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The informant-appellant, Antonetto J D'Souza, alleged that his neighbours, Aldila Braganza (the accused) and her father-in-law, undertook illegal construction in Calangute, Goa, relying on a forged copy of an approved building plan. The informant contended that the accused and her father-in-law had interpolated and forged the original plan drawn by Mr. Agnelo Mascarenhas to justify unauthorized construction, thereby committing offences of forgery, cheating, and criminal conspiracy.
Key Facts
- The accused and her father-in-law undertook construction pursuant to License No.20/72 dated 13.04.1971 issued by Mapusa Municipal Council
- According to the informant, the structure erected was illegal as it relied on a forged copy of the original approved plan drawn by Mr. Agnelo Mascarenhas
- On the basis of the informant’s complaint dated 05.07.2012, a First Information Report (FIR No.152/2012) was registered on 18.07.2012 with Calangute Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 468, 471, and 420 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 34
- On completion of investigation, a final report was filed on 02.04.2016, stating that the accused and her father-in-law, in furtherance of their common intention, had forged a copy of the original plan and submitted it as genuine to the Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority
- The learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, on 21.12.2017, heard the accused and her father-in-law and directed framing of charge for the offence punishable under Sections 468, 471, 420 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code
- Being aggrieved, the accused filed a revision application under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which was dismissed by the Sessions Court on 28.12.2021
- During pendency of the revision application, the accused approached the High Court of Bombay at Goa by filing Criminal Writ Petition No.458/2020 (re-numbered as 80/2023), challenging the FIR and chargesheet
- The High Court, by order dated 31.10.2023, declined to interfere with the order framing charge, observing prima facie material existed on record
- The accused thereafter filed Criminal Writ Petition No.346/2024, again challenging the orders framing charge and dismissing the revision application
- On 01.07.2024, the learned Single Judge proceeded to hold that notice to the informant was unnecessary as the chargesheet was filed by the State
- On 28.08.2024, the learned Single Judge discharged the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 468, 471, and 420 of the Penal Code, holding that absence of the original plan on record meant the material was insufficient to frame charge
Procedural History
- 05.07.2012: Informant lodged complaint with Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority
- 18.07.2012: FIR No.152/2012 registered by Calangute Police Station for offences under Sections 468, 471, 420 IPC r/w Section 34
- 14.03.2013: Police Sub-Inspector's reply opposing anticipatory bail, stating custodial interrogation necessary for recovering original and forged plans
- 19.06.2013: Sessions Court granted anticipatory bail to accused and father-in-law
- 02.04.2016: Final report filed, stating accused forged copy of original plan and submitted as genuine
- 21.12.2017: Learned Magistrate framed charges after hearing accused
- 28.12.2021: Sessions Court dismissed revision application under Section 397 CrPC, upheld order framing charge
- 31.10.2023: High Court (Division Bench) rejected Criminal Writ Petition No.80/2023, declined to interfere with order framing charge
- 01.07.2024: Learned Single Judge held notice to informant unnecessary in Criminal Writ Petition No.346/2024
- 28.08.2024: Learned Single Judge discharged accused, set aside orders framing charge and dismissing revision
- 22.09.2026: Present judgment delivered
Relief Sought
The informant-appellant sought to set aside the order dated 28.08.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge discharging the accused, restore the proceedings before the learned Magistrate, and permit the trial to proceed on merits.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the High Court was justified in exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to discharge the accused at the charging stage solely on the ground that the original plan alleged to be forged was not placed on record alongside the chargesheet, thereby vitiating the entire prosecution.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant/Petitioner
The informant, through Ms. Vrinda Grover, contended that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC by interfering with the order passed by the learned Magistrate framing charge, which had been upheld by the Sessions Court. It was argued that at the stage of framing charge, the Magistrate was not required to conduct a roving inquiry into the genuineness of documents; prima facie consideration of prosecution material, including statements of the engineer who prepared the plan, was sufficient to proceed with trial. Reliance was placed on the Division Bench's order dated 31.10.2023, which rightly declined to interfere with the framing of charge, and the principle of issue estoppel was invoked to bar re-litigation of the same issue (absence of original plan) that had been unsuccessfully raised earlier.
For the Respondent/State
The accused, appearing in-person, supported the impugned order of the High Court, submitting that since the original plan had not been placed on record along with the chargesheet, the charge of forgery could never have been framed. She referred to prosecution documents indicating the original plan had not been recovered despite fourteen years having passed since the FIR, arguing that requiring her to face trial under such circumstances amounted to abuse of process of law. It was contended that the learned Magistrate and Sessions Judge failed to notice this basic infirmity, and the prosecution should have secured and placed the original plan on record.
The Court's Analysis
The Court began by noting the chequered history of the proceedings, tracing the challenge to the absence of the original plan from the initial writ petition through to the present appeal. It emphasized that the Division Bench in the earlier round (31.10.2023) had declined to interfere with the order framing charge, specifically observing that prima facie material existed on record to frame charges for offences under Sections 468, 471, 420 r/w 34 IPC. This finding was based on the Magistrate's order dated 21.12.2017, which considered the ingredients of the sections and documents placed on record, observing that witness statements and available documents prima facie proved the second plan was forged by superimposing alteration on the copy of the approved plan.
The Court then examined the scope of inquiry at the charging stage under Section 227 CrPC, referencing K.H. Kamaladini Vs. State to outline four well-settled principles: (1) the Court can examine only documents forming part of the chargesheet; (2) it must decide if sufficient ground exists for proceeding with trial; (3) it cannot sift evidence to separate grain from chaff; and (4) if evidence without cross-examination shows no offence, discharge must be passed, but if grave suspicion exists, discharge is impermissible. The Court further relied on Ram Prakash Chadha Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh, which held that the question of framing charge arises only when the Court satisfies itself about existence of a prima facie case from 'the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith,' and such conclusion cannot be based on mere suppositions or suspicions unfounded in material.
Addressing the core contention, the Court held that absence of the original document alleged to be forged, by itself, cannot be the basis to quash the prosecution at the charging stage. Drawing from Rama Shanker Lal and others Vs. The State of U.P., it clarified that while non-production of the alleged forged document may go against the prosecution, it does not automatically mean the offence of forgery cannot be established; rather, the evidence must exclude all possibility of reasonable doubt to sustain a finding of forgery in the document's absence. The Court buttressed this with Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. R.S. Pai and Another, which held that in absence of specific prohibition, investigating officers may produce additional documents after chargesheet filing with court permission, and no prejudice accrues to the accused from such course.
Finally, the Court applied the principle of issue estoppel, noting that the Division Bench had already considered and rejected the ground of absence of original plan being submitted with chargesheet in the earlier writ petition (31.10.2023). Since the same issue between the same parties had been distinctly raised and decided against the accused, it was not open for her to re-agitate the very same contention in the subsequent writ petition. The Single Judge's failure to consider this earlier adjudication constituted a clear error, as issue estoppel bars re-litigation of settled issues between identical parties in the same proceedings.
The Verdict
The appellant succeeded. The Supreme Court set aside the order dated 28.08.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court in Criminal Writ Petition No.346/2024, restored the proceedings in Criminal Case No.90/S/2016/F before the learned Magistrate, and directed that the Magistrate shall now proceed with the trial in accordance with law. The Court clarified that all contentions of the parties, including the accused, remain open for being raised at trial, and no observations made shall cause prejudice to either party. Since the complaint dates from 2012, the proceedings before the Magistrate are to be expedited.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Framing Charge Requires Only Prima Facie Satisfaction
At the charging stage under Section 227 CrPC, courts need only be satisfied that materials on record disclose a prima facie case for proceeding with trial; proof beyond reasonable doubt is not required. The prosecution need not produce the original document alleged to be forged if other evidence (such as witness statements, expert opinions, or circumstantial material) establishes a prima facie case of forgery, cheating, or related offences. Absence of the original document goes to the weight of evidence at trial, not the sufficiency of materials for framing charge.
Issue Estoppel Bars Re-litigation of Same Issue Between Same Parties
Where an issue of fact or law has been distinctly raised and decided in earlier proceedings between the same parties, the principle of issue estoppel prevents re-agitation of that very issue in subsequent proceedings. Here, the Division Bench's consideration and rejection of the 'absence of original plan' ground in the 31.10.2023 order barred the accused from raising the identical contention in her 2024 writ petition. Courts must scrutinize whether a challenge truly presents a new issue or merely re-litigates a settled matter.
Absence of Original Document Not Fatal to Prosecution Case
The non-production of an alleged forged document does not automatically invalidate a chargesheet or warrant discharge at the charging stage. Prosecution may attempt to prove forgery through circumstantial evidence, expert testimony, or other materials on record, subject to the reasonable doubt standard at trial. Investigating agencies retain the liberty to produce additional documents post-chargesheet with judicial permission, and failure to recover the original document does not, by itself, render the prosecution unsustainable in law.
