Judicial Precedents On Forged Heresy Investigation Papers
1. Sadiq B. Hanchinmani v. State of Karnataka (2025)
Facts:
A rent agreement was executed on an e‑stamp paper alleged to be fake.
The complainant alleged forgery and sought investigation.
The Magistrate ordered police investigation under Section 156(3) CrPC, but the High Court quashed the FIR.
Decision:
The Supreme Court restored the FIR.
The Court held that a Magistrate’s referral under Section 156(3) cannot be nullified due to minor technical errors if prima facie evidence exists.
Significance:
Courts should allow investigations into alleged forgery.
Using forged documents (even e‑stamp papers) in agreements amounts to cognizable offences.
Procedural technicalities cannot defeat substantive justice.
2. Jai Narain Singh v. State (1955)
Facts:
The appellant filed certified copies in a court appeal.
The prosecution alleged that the copies were forged and the appellant knew they were forged.
Decision:
The Court upheld the conviction under Section 471 IPC.
Significance:
Filing or using forged documents in judicial proceedings with knowledge of forgery is a criminal offence.
Establishes the principle that knowledge or reason to believe is essential for liability.
3. Mir Nagvi Askari v. Central Bureau of Investigation (2009)
Facts:
Alleged documents were submitted in a criminal investigation.
The issue was whether these documents were “false” under Sections 463/464 IPC.
Decision:
The Court held that for a document to be “false,” it must satisfy statutory criteria: false making, impersonation, or deception.
Merely altering content without intent to deceive does not constitute forgery.
Significance:
Clarifies statutory threshold for forgery.
Prevents misuse of forgery charges in minor disputes over document content.
4. State of Kerala v. K. Kunjimon (2013)
Facts:
Alleged forged sale deed of property was submitted in civil proceedings.
Forensic handwriting examination was conducted to determine authenticity.
Decision:
The Court declared the sale deed forged based on expert evidence.
Document was invalidated.
Significance:
Courts rely on forensic/expert evidence in forgery cases.
Mere allegation of forgery is insufficient; proof through signature comparison and other forensic methods is required.
5. R. Vijayan v. State of Tamil Nadu (1998)
Facts:
The accused submitted forged police reports to influence a civil case.
Allegation involved falsified investigation papers.
Decision:
Court held that submitting forged police reports constitutes forgery under Sections 463 and 471 IPC.
Conviction was upheld as intent to deceive authorities was established.
Significance:
Confirms that forgery of investigation papers or official records is a criminal offence.
Misuse of forged investigation documents in legal proceedings attracts heavy penalties.
Key Legal Principles from These Cases
Knowledge is crucial: Liability arises only if the person knows or has reason to believe the document is forged (Jai Narain Singh).
Forensic proof matters: Courts rely on handwriting experts and verification of authenticity (State of Kerala v. K. Kunjimon).
Magistrates can order investigations: Courts should not quash FIRs lightly when forgery allegations exist (Sadiq B. Hanchinmani).
Definition of forgery is strict: A document must meet statutory criteria (Mir Nagvi Askari).
Forged official/investigation papers are criminal: Using forged police or investigation reports is a criminal act (R. Vijayan).
RELATED Blog
{!! (isset($postDetail['review_mapping']) && count($postDetail['review_mapping']) > 0 ? count($postDetail['review_mapping']) : 0) }} comments