The Allahabad High Court has reaffirmed that criminal proceedings for forgery cannot be initiated on the basis of vague or bald allegations. In a significant ruling, the Court quashed proceedings against petitioners who were summoned under multiple IPC sections for allegedly forging a 1957 sale deed, holding that no material particulars were disclosed to establish a prima facie case.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The dispute arises from a property ownership claim involving a sale deed dated 23.03.1957, executed in favour of the petitioner’s father. The petitioners, Abdul Salman Khan and two others, claim ownership of a house in Varanasi based on this deed. The complainant, Gayasuddin, alleges that the petitioners are merely tenants of the property and that the sale deed is forged. He filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. seeking police investigation, which was later converted into Complaint Case No. 94612 of 2023.
Key Facts
- The sale deed dated 23.03.1957 bears the signature of a Sub-Registrar, Varanasi, and was registered under the Registration Act
- The petitioners’ names were mutated in revenue records based on this deed
- The complainant alleged the deed was forged and submitted a photostat copy bearing the seal of "Sub-Registrar-II"
- The petitioners obtained information under the Right to Information Act, 2005, revealing that the post of Sub-Registrar-II did not exist in 1957 and was created only after 1990
- No specific evidence was produced to show how, when, or by whom the deed was forged
- No comparison of signatures, handwriting analysis, or documentary contradiction was presented
Procedural History
- 23.03.1957: Sale deed executed in favour of petitioner’s father
- 2023: Complainant files application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. alleging forgery
- 26.09.2024: Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division)/Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Varanasi, issues summons to petitioners under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, and 474 IPC
- 12.11.2025: Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track (14th Finance Commission), Varanasi, dismisses Criminal Revision No. 276 of 2025 filed by petitioners challenging the summons
- 06.05.2026: Present writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution before the Allahabad High Court
Relief Sought
The petitioners sought quashing of the summons order dated 26.09.2024 and the dismissal order dated 12.11.2025, and termination of all proceedings in Complaint Case No. 94612 of 2023.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether a criminal complaint under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, and 474 IPC can sustain a summons against an accused based solely on a bald allegation of forgery, without disclosing any material particulars to establish a prima facie case.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Learned counsel argued that the complaint contained no specific allegations regarding the manner of forgery, the identity of the forger, the date or place of fabrication, or any contradictory evidence. The reliance on the non-existence of the post of Sub-Registrar-II in 1957 was a factual rebuttal, not proof of forgery. The petitioners cited State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal to argue that courts must filter out frivolous complaints before issuing summons. They emphasized that the absence of a Sub-Registrar-II post in 1957 does not prove forgery - it only shows a clerical error in the photostat copy.
For the Respondent
The Additional Government Advocate contended that the complainant had a bona fide belief that the sale deed was forged and that the petitioners were not the rightful owners. He submitted that the mere fact of mutation of names in revenue records based on a disputed document justified investigation. No specific legal precedents were cited to support the sufficiency of the allegations.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the complaint and the order issuing summons and found a complete absence of material particulars. It held that a mere assertion that a document is forged, without identifying the forged portion, the method of fabrication, or any corroborative evidence, cannot trigger criminal proceedings.
"A mere allegation of forgery is not sufficient to constitute offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, and 474 IPC. A person making such an allegation is required to disclose material particulars on the basis of which the Court may arrive at a prima facie conclusion that fabrication or forgery has been committed by the accused. In the absence of such material particulars, a bald allegation alone cannot constitute an offence under the IPC."
The Court distinguished between a genuine dispute over title and a criminal act of forgery. It noted that the complainant failed to explain how the 1957 deed could have been forged when the alleged forger (petitioner) was not even born at that time. The Court also observed that the photostat copy’s seal of Sub-Registrar-II, while possibly erroneous, did not prove the original deed was forged - it only indicated a clerical misrepresentation in the copy submitted.
The Court reiterated the principle from Bhajan Lal that courts must act as gatekeepers to prevent abuse of process. It emphasized that summoning an accused under serious criminal provisions requires more than suspicion - it demands a reasonable basis grounded in facts.
The Verdict
The petition succeeded. The Court set aside the order dated 26.09.2024 of the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) and the order dated 12.11.2025 of the Additional District and Sessions Judge. All proceedings in Complaint Case No. 94612 of 2023 are quashed. No costs were awarded.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Bald Allegations Cannot Trigger Criminal Proceedings
- Practitioners must now insist that complaints under Sections 420, 467, 468 IPC contain specific allegations: date of forgery, method used, identity of forger, and contradictory evidence
- Courts must reject summonses where the complaint relies on general assertions without factual anchoring
Documentary Discrepancies ≠ Forgery
- A mismatch in administrative details (e.g., post title, seal, stamp) does not prove forgery of the original document
- Petitioners may rely on RTI responses to challenge the credibility of complainants’ claims, but such responses alone are not conclusive proof of forgery
Pre-Summons Screening Is Mandatory
-
Courts must conduct a preliminary review of complaints under Section 200 Cr.P.C. before issuing summons
-
The Bhajan Lal filter must be applied rigorously in property-related forgery cases to prevent harassment
-
Always demand a detailed affidavit from complainants specifying the exact nature of the alleged forgery
-
File applications under Section 482 Cr.P.C. or Article 227 at the earliest stage if summons are issued on vague grounds
-
In civil title disputes, avoid conflating civil remedies with criminal prosecution unless clear evidence of fabrication exists
