The Madras High Court has reaffirmed a foundational principle of criminal procedure: at the stage of discharge under Section 245 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, courts must confine their scrutiny to the prosecution’s evidence alone. The discharge of accused persons based on defence documents constitutes a legal error that undermines the integrity of trial proceedings.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, S. Maruvappan, alleged that his three brothers - S. Saravanan (A1), S. Mohanasundaram (A2), and S. Singaravelu (A4) - forged his signature on mortgage documents to secure loans from a banker using his property title deeds. The petitioner claimed he had retired from the family business, M/s. Saratha Textiles, in 1995 and was unaware that the mortgage loan, originally taken in 1988, was renewed in 1998 without his consent. The forged documents were later used to trigger proceedings under the SARFAESI Act, prompting the petitioner to file a complaint in 2010.
Key Facts
- The property in question was jointly owned by the petitioner and his brothers.
- A mortgage deed dated 1988 was renewed in 1998, allegedly with the petitioner’s forged signature.
- The petitioner retired from M/s. Saratha Textiles on 31.12.1995.
- The banker initiated SARFAESI proceedings in 2009 - 2010 after default in repayment.
- The petitioner obtained information under the Right to Information Act in early 2010 and discovered the forged mortgage.
- He filed a complaint with the Superintendent of Police, Pondicherry (North), on 10.04.2010.
- The FIR (Crime No. 140 of 2010) was closed by police on the ground that the matter was civil in nature.
- The petitioner filed a protest petition, which the Trial Court treated as a private complaint.
- The Trial Court took cognizance on 15.03.2015 in C.C. No. 88 of 2015 against seven accused for offences under Sections 380, 403, 409, 411, 416 - 420, 463, 465, and 471 IPC read with Section 34 IPC.
- The petitioner examined himself as P.W.1 and produced two other witnesses, including a handwriting expert and the banker.
- The handwriting expert opined that the signature on the mortgage deed differed materially from the petitioner’s admitted signature.
- A1, A2, and A4 filed a discharge petition on 10.04.2022, relying on twelve defence documents.
- The Trial Court, on 20.06.2022, discharged the three accused after examining these defence documents and the Debt Recovery Tribunal’s order dated 10.05.2013 in O.A. No. 124 of 2011.
Procedural History
- 10.04.2010: Complaint lodged with Superintendent of Police, Pondicherry (North)
- 2010: FIR Crime No. 140 of 2010 registered, later closed as "Action Dropped"
- 2011: Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) passed order in O.A. No. 124 of 2011, rejecting forgery claim
- 15.03.2015: Trial Court took cognizance in C.C. No. 88 of 2015
- 10.04.2022: A1, A2, A4 filed discharge petition (Crl.M.P. No. 2351 of 2022)
- 20.06.2022: Trial Court discharged accused based on defence documents and DRT findings
- 05.03.2026: Criminal Revision heard and reserved
- 16.03.2026: Judgment pronounced by Madras High Court
The Parties' Positions
For the Petitioner: Argued that the Trial Court erred in considering defence documents at discharge stage. Emphasized that the prosecution’s evidence - including the handwriting expert’s opinion and the banker’s testimony - established a prima facie case. Contended that the discharge order amounted to a mini-trial.
For the Respondents: Argued that the petitioner had full knowledge of the mortgage since 1988 and that the DRT had already rejected the forgery claim. Asserted that the defence documents proved the petitioner’s awareness and consent, making criminal prosecution unjust.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought setting aside of the discharge order dated 20.06.2022 and direction to the Trial Court to proceed with trial against A1, A2, and A4.
The Legal Issue
Can a Trial Court, while deciding a discharge petition under Section 245 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, consider documents and evidence produced by the defence to determine whether a prima facie case exists?
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner’s counsel relied on State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi (2005 1 SCC 568), arguing that at the discharge stage, the court must examine only the materials placed by the prosecution. The accused cannot introduce defence documents or evidence to rebut the prosecution’s case at this stage. The Trial Court’s reliance on the DRT order and twelve defence documents amounted to a premature evaluation of evidence, violating the settled principle that discharge is not a trial. The handwriting expert’s report, produced by the prosecution, was sufficient to establish a prima facie case of forgery.
For the Respondent
The respondents’ counsel contended that the petitioner’s knowledge of the mortgage was evident from the 1988 and 1998 documents, and that the DRT’s finding - that no forgery occurred - was binding. They argued that the Trial Court was justified in considering all available materials to avoid subjecting the accused to a frivolous trial. The absence of immediate protest by the petitioner after 1998, they claimed, undermined the forgery allegation.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the statutory framework under Section 245 CrPC, which permits discharge if the Magistrate finds no case made out against the accused based on the evidence presented by the prosecution. The Court emphasized that the purpose of discharge is not to determine guilt or innocence, but to filter out baseless cases before trial.
"The expression 'hearing the submissions of the accused' cannot mean opportunity to file material to be granted to the accused and thereby changing the settled law. At the stage of framing of charge hearing the submissions of the accused has to be confined to the material produced by the police."
The Court cited State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi to reiterate that the accused cannot introduce defence documents at the discharge stage. The Trial Court’s reliance on the DRT’s findings and twelve defence documents was impermissible because such materials are meant to be tested during trial through cross-examination and rebuttal.
The Court noted that the prosecution had established a prima facie case: the petitioner’s sworn testimony, the banker’s evidence, and the handwriting expert’s opinion collectively indicated that the signature on the mortgage deed was forged and that the petitioner was unaware of the 1998 renewal. The DRT’s order, while relevant, was not binding on the criminal court and could not be used to pre-judge the issue of forgery.
The Court held that the Trial Court committed a grave error by conducting a mini-trial at the discharge stage. Such conduct not only violates the procedural safeguards under CrPC but also deprives the prosecution of its right to present its full case before a competent forum.
The Verdict
The Criminal Revision is allowed. The order dated 20.06.2022 discharging A1, A2, and A4 is set aside. The Trial Court is directed to proceed with the trial against the accused persons and complete the same within six months from the date of receipt of this order.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Defence Documents Are Inadmissible at Discharge Stage
- Practitioners must not submit defence documents during discharge proceedings; doing so invites reversal on appeal.
- Courts must reject any attempt to introduce affidavits, bank records, or expert reports from the defence at this stage.
- The only permissible materials are those filed by the prosecution in the charge sheet and accompanying documents.
Prima Facie Case Requires Only Prosecution Evidence
- A prima facie case is established if the prosecution’s evidence, even if untested, suggests a reasonable ground for believing the accused committed the offence.
- The presence of contradictory evidence from the defence does not negate the existence of a prima facie case.
- Handwriting expert reports, bank records, and witness statements from the prosecution are sufficient to sustain cognizance.
DRT Findings Do Not Preclude Criminal Proceedings
- Civil or quasi-judicial findings (e.g., from DRT, NCLT, or consumer forums) cannot be used to discharge accused in criminal cases.
- Criminal courts must independently evaluate evidence under CrPC standards, regardless of parallel civil proceedings.
- A finding in favour of the accused in a civil forum does not equate to acquittal or legal estoppel in criminal law.
