The Madhya Pradesh High Court has clarified the legal threshold for framing charges in forgery cases, distinguishing between the preparation of forged documents and their subsequent use. The judgment reinforces that at the stage of charge framing, courts need not determine guilt but only assess whether a prima facie case exists under the relevant provisions of the Indian Penal Code.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The applicant, Manorama Agrawal, is accused of conspiring with a notary, Smt. Deepa Shrivastav, to forge a power of attorney dated 30.11.2017 concerning jointly owned properties of her children - Aman Agarwal, Anuj Agarwal, Amit Agarwal, and Mithul Agarwal. The complainant, Aman Agarwal (the applicant’s son), alleged that the signatures of the siblings on the document were fabricated while they were abroad or otherwise absent from Ashoknagar on the date of execution. The power of attorney was produced by the complainant during investigation and was not recovered from the applicant.
Key Facts
- The power of attorney dated 30.11.2017 purportedly transferred rights over ancestral properties to the applicant.
- The complainant and his siblings were outside India on 30.11.2017, the date of execution.
- The document bears the signatures of two witnesses: Shivkumar Verma and Shriram Kurmi.
- The notary seal on the document was identified by the State Examiner of Questioned Documents as matching that of Smt. Deepa Shrivastav.
- Smt. Deepa Shrivastav, in her statement, admitted to notarizing the document at the applicant’s instance.
- The applicant’s signature on the power of attorney was not conclusively verified by the State Examiner.
- The prosecution did not allege that the power of attorney was ever presented, registered, or used to transfer property or obtain any benefit.
Procedural History
- 30.11.2017: Alleged execution of forged power of attorney.
- 2021: Complaint lodged by Aman Agarwal with Police Station Kotwali, Ashoknagar.
- 2021: FIR No. 110/2021 registered under Sections 420, 467, 468, and 120-B IPC.
- 20.10.2024: Charge sheet filed under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
- 04.06.2025: Trial Court framed charges against the applicant under Sections 420, 467, 468, and 120-B IPC.
- 24.03.2026: Criminal Revision No. 3252 of 2025 heard before the High Court at Gwalior.
- 02.04.2026: Judgment delivered by Justice Amit Seth.
The Parties' Positions
For the Applicant
- Argued that the prosecution failed to establish that the applicant’s signature was affixed on the power of attorney.
- Contended that the document was never used, and therefore, no offence under Section 420 IPC could be made out.
- Relied on Mohd. Ibrahim v. State of Bihar and Devendra v. State of U.P. to argue that absence of use negates criminal liability.
- Asserted that the statements of witnesses indicate ignorance of the document’s contents.
For the Respondent/State
- Submitted that the forged document was prepared with the applicant’s involvement, as evidenced by witness statements and the notary’s seal.
- Cited State of Rajasthan v. Fatehkaran Mehdu and Shri Sukhbir Singh Badal v. Balwant Singh Khera to argue that preparation of a forged document alone suffices for charges under Sections 467 and 468 IPC.
- Emphasized that the complainant’s siblings were not present on the date of execution, making the signatures inherently fraudulent.
Relief Sought
The applicant sought quashing of the charge framed under Section 420 IPC and, alternatively, discharge from all charges on grounds of insufficient evidence. The State sought dismissal of the revision, urging continuation of trial on all charges.
The Legal Issue
Can charges under Section 420 IPC be framed against an accused solely on the allegation of preparing a forged document, without any evidence that the document was used to deceive and induce delivery of property? And does the preparation of a forged document with fraudulent intent, even without use, suffice to frame charges under Sections 467 and 468 IPC read with Section 120-B IPC?
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant/Petitioner
The applicant’s counsel argued that Section 420 IPC requires proof of cheating under Section 415 IPC, which in turn demands deception leading to delivery of property or alteration of a valuable security. Since the power of attorney was never presented, registered, or acted upon, no inducement occurred and no property was transferred. The absence of use rendered the charge under Section 420 legally unsustainable. Reliance was placed on Mohd. Ibrahim v. State of Bihar and A.M. Mohan v. State to establish that mere forgery without consequential deception does not attract Section 420. The counsel further contended that the trial court erred in ignoring the lack of forensic proof of the applicant’s signature on the document.
For the Respondent/State
The Public Prosecutor and counsel for the complainant argued that Sections 467 and 468 IPC criminalize the act of forgery itself, irrespective of subsequent use. The presence of the notary’s seal, the testimony of attesting witnesses, and the absence of the purported signatories on the date of execution collectively established a prima facie case of conspiracy and forgery. Citing Shri Sukhbir Singh Badal v. Balwant Singh Khera, they emphasized that the law punishes the creation of forged documents as an independent offence. The State maintained that the revision court’s role is not to weigh evidence but to determine whether a prima facie case exists.
The Court's Analysis
The Court undertook a detailed examination of the legal principles governing the framing of charges under the Code of Criminal Procedure, particularly under Section 228 IPC and the revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 Cr.P.C. It reiterated that at the stage of framing charges, the court does not assess the credibility or probative value of evidence, but only determines whether the allegations, taken at face value, disclose a prima facie case of offence.
"The framing of charge is not a stage, at which stage final test of guilt is to be applied. Thus, to hold that at the stage of framing the charge, the court should form an opinion that the accused is certainly guilty of committing an offence, is to hold something which is neither permissible nor is in consonance with scheme of Code of Criminal Procedure."
The Court analyzed the material on record: the complainant’s statement, the statements of siblings who were abroad, the testimony of attesting witnesses, and the forensic opinion confirming the notary’s seal. These elements, taken together, established a prima facie case that the applicant conspired to create a forged document with fraudulent intent, satisfying the requirements of Sections 467, 468, and 120-B IPC.
However, the Court found no material to support the charge under Section 420 IPC. It applied the test laid down in A.M. Mohan v. State and Mohd. Ibrahim v. State of Bihar, holding that Section 420 requires two essential ingredients: (1) commission of cheating under Section 415 IPC, and (2) dishonest inducement resulting in delivery of property or alteration of a valuable security. The Court observed:
"The prosecution case, as it stands, only alleges preparation of a forged power of attorney, but does not disclose any act whereby the said document was acted upon so as to bring about delivery of property or alteration of any valuable security."
The Court emphasized that mere forgery, even if fraudulent, does not equate to cheating unless it results in inducement leading to property transfer. The complainant did not allege that he was deceived into parting with property or consenting to its retention. The allegation was that his signature was forged on a document he never saw or authorized - this constitutes forgery, not cheating.
The Court further noted that the revisional jurisdiction is limited and should not be exercised routinely. However, where a charge is clearly unsustainable under law, as in the case of Section 420, interference is warranted.
The Verdict
The applicant succeeded in part. The High Court set aside the charge framed against the applicant under Section 420 IPC and quashed it. The charges under Sections 467, 468, and 120-B IPC were affirmed. The trial court was directed to proceed with the trial on the remaining charges. The Court clarified that its observations were strictly limited to the stage of charge framing and did not prejudge the merits of the case.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Forgery Without Use Still Attracts Charges Under Sections 467/468 IPC
- Practitioners must now argue that the mere preparation of a forged document with fraudulent intent, supported by witness testimony and forensic evidence of the forger’s involvement, is sufficient to frame charges under Sections 467 and 468 IPC.
- The absence of use or actual benefit derived from the forged document is irrelevant to the framing of charges under these sections.
- Prosecutors should focus on establishing the accused’s role in creation, not subsequent exploitation, of the forged instrument.
Section 420 IPC Requires Proof of Deception Leading to Property Transfer
- A charge under Section 420 IPC cannot be sustained merely because a forged document exists.
- The complaint or charge sheet must explicitly allege that the victim was deceived into delivering property or altering a valuable security.
- Where the victim is unaware of the forgery and suffers no inducement, Section 420 is inapplicable - only Sections 467/468 may apply.
- Practitioners should carefully distinguish between forgery and cheating in drafting complaints and in opposing charge framing.
Revision Courts May Interfere Where Charges Are Legally Unsustainable
- Revision petitions under Section 397 Cr.P.C. are not barred merely because the charge has been framed.
- Where the allegations, even if accepted at face value, fail to disclose an essential ingredient of an offence, the High Court may quash the charge.
- This judgment reinforces that revisional jurisdiction is not a tool for re-trial but a safeguard against legally defective charges.
