The Supreme Court has held that the absence of an original document alleged to have been forged does not, by itself, justify ending a criminal prosecution at the stage of framing charges. The prosecution must be given an opportunity to prove its case at trial through the evidence available to it, including circumstantial evidence.
A Bench of Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and Atul S. Chandurkar set aside a Bombay High Court order that had discharged a woman accused of using an allegedly altered building plan. The Court restored the criminal case before the Magistrate and directed that the trial be expedited, noting that the complaint dates back to 2012.
Buy Now: Supreme Court Judgments E-Magazine – 5 Month Combo (2026) (1st February – 30th June 2026)
The case arose from a dispute between neighbours in Goa. The informant alleged that the accused and her father-in-law had undertaken illegal construction and relied on a plan that was an altered, forged copy of an approved plan drawn by an engineer. After the informant approached the Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority, a police complaint led to an FIR in July 2012 under Sections 468, 471 and 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
Following investigation, the police filed a chargesheet in April 2016. The Magistrate found sufficient material to frame charges in December 2017, and the Sessions Court upheld that decision. During the proceedings, the accused’s father-in-law died and the case against him abated.
The accused maintained that neither the original approved plan nor the allegedly forged plan had been recovered. She argued that a forgery charge could not proceed on the basis of photocopies. In August 2024, a Single Judge of the High Court accepted that argument, set aside the orders framing charges and discharged her.
The Supreme Court found a separate problem with the discharge order: an earlier Division Bench of the High Court had already considered the objection about the missing original plan and declined to interfere with the prosecution. That October 2023 order had not been challenged further.
The accused subsequently filed another petition raising substantially the same objection, this time challenging the Magistrate’s order and the Sessions Court’s decision directly. The Supreme Court held that the earlier decision could not be bypassed in this manner. It applied the principle of issue estoppel, under which an issue already decided between the parties cannot simply be reopened in later proceedings.
On the evidence question, the Supreme Court rejected the view that failure to produce the original document must end a forgery case. Whether the prosecution can establish the alleged alteration without it depends on the evidence presented at trial. The Court noted that additional documents may, with the court’s permission, be produced even after a chargesheet has been filed.
The Bench distinguished the decision to frame a charge from a finding of guilt. At the charge stage, the court asks whether the material supports proceeding to trial; it does not decide whether the prosecution will ultimately prove the offence beyond reasonable doubt. The High Court had gone too far by assessing whether the available evidence would secure a conviction, the Supreme Court held.
The ruling does not establish that the building plan was forged or that the accused committed an offence. Those questions remain open. The accused may contest the documents, the alleged forgery and every other aspect of the prosecution’s case during trial.
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s August 2024 judgment and restored Criminal Case No. 90/S/2016/F before the Magistrate. It directed the Magistrate to proceed in accordance with law and expedite the case. The Court expressly kept all parties’ contentions open and said its observations should not prejudice the trial.
Membership Required to Access Case Details & Order Copy
To view the complete Case Details and Download Order Copy, you must have an active membership. Please subscribe to continue.
