Court Cannot Quash Forgery FIR Before Handwriting Expert’s Report Comes: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has held that a high court should not quash an FIR alleging forgery and fraud when the investigation is still underway and the disputed documents are being examined by handwriting experts. Court said doing so at a premature stage would be “totally unjustified".

Setting aside a January 2024 order of the Himachal Pradesh High Court, a Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta restored an FIR lodged by Sharla Bazliel in Shimla alleging cheating, forgery, criminal conspiracy and misappropriation against three accused persons.

The apex court said the allegations in the FIR clearly disclosed offences of fraud and criminal misappropriation, particularly because the complainant had accused the respondents of fraudulently posing as nominees and siphoning off money from her parents’ bank accounts. The Bench observed that the material collected during investigation was sufficient to proceed further and the case did not warrant interference under Section 482 CrPC (corresponding to Section 528, BNSS).

Why did the Supreme Court fault the high court for quashing the forgery FIR?

The Supreme Court said the high court overlooked a crucial aspect of the investigation that the disputed documents had already been sent to the State Forensic Science Laboratory (SFSL) for examination of signatures. According to the Bench, once the court was informed that the genuineness of the signatures was under forensic scrutiny, there was no justification to terminate the proceedings before the expert report was received.

The high court had held that the FIR was based on speculation and that ingredients of fraud, forgery and misrepresentation were not made out. It had also relied on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Mir Nagvi Askari v. CBI (2009) to observe that the prosecution must establish creation of a false document to prove forgery. However, the apex court said such reliance was misplaced when the investigation itself was incomplete and forensic analysis was still pending.

The FIR alleged that the accused persons conspired to grab the properties and assets of Dr G B Bazliel, father of the complainant, through extortion, forged documents and fraudulent transactions. Sharla Bazliel claimed she was the adopted daughter and legal heir of Dr Bazliel.

According to the complaint, after the death of her mother in 2013, Dr Bazliel suffered from severe depression and other health complications. It was alleged that one of the accused, Daljit Singh, introduced him to a woman named Jienpuri Kamsuon and gradually isolated him from his family, taking advantage of his vulnerable condition.

The complainant alleged that Rs 1.18 crore was transferred from her father’s bank accounts to Daljit Singh without any legitimate transaction. She further alleged that nearly 49 bighas of family land was sold to another accused, Baldev Thakur, at a throwaway price of Rs 3.90 crore by using forged documents and falsely claiming that all legal heirs had consented to the sale.

She also claimed that after her father’s death, the accused took possession of the family house and land and prevented her from accessing her belongings, jewellery and important documents. One of the accused was further accused of closing Dr Bazliel’s bank account by falsely claiming to be his nominee and transferring over Rs 5.7 lakh into his own account.

What did the SFSL report on disputed signatures reveal?

The Supreme Court noted that during the pendency of the proceedings, the SFSL report had been received and it concluded that the signatures appearing on the disputed documents were facsimile stamps and not handwritten signatures of Dr Bazliel. The Bench observed that the investigation had thus yielded credible evidence suggesting that forged signatures were used for transferring the properties in favour of the accused persons.

Court held that the high court had prematurely terminated proceedings despite clear allegations of fraud, forgery, falsification of documents and criminal breach of trust. It also clarified that an earlier FIR filed by the complainant against her father in another dispute had no connection with the present allegations and could not have been relied upon to discredit her case.

Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court directed the investigating officer to complete the investigation and file the final report before the competent court at the earliest. It further directed that if the charge sheet had already been filed, the trial court should proceed with the matter in accordance with law.

Court clarified that its observations were confined to deciding the present appeals and would not affect the rights and defences available to the parties during trial.

Case Title: Sharla Bazliel Vs Baldev Thakur And Others

Bench: Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta

Date of Judgment: March 17, 2026