Antonetto J D’Souza – Aldila Braganza and Others – Criminal Appeal No. 4092 of 2026 – 2026 INSC 1032 – September 22, 2026 – Ujjal Bhuyan and Atul S. Chandurkar, JJ.
https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2024/54804/54804_2024_10_1501_54587_Judgement_22-Sep-2026.pdf
Appellant and impugned order challenged
The appellant-informant brought this criminal appeal challenging the final judgment and order dated 28.08.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Bombay at Goa in Criminal Writ Petition No. 346 of 2024. By the said impugned order, the High Court set aside the concurrent orders passed by the Magistrate framing charges and the Sessions Court dismissing revision, thereby discharging the first respondent-accused for offences punishable under Sections 468, 471, and 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. (paras 1, 6, 13)
Factual matrix
The appellant and the respondent are neighbours between whom disputes arose over the construction of a structure pursuant to a 1971 municipal licence. The appellant alleged that the structure was completely illegal and built relying upon an interpolated, forged copy of an approved plan drawn by an engineer. A complaint was initially made before the Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority, followed by a formal police report on 05.07.2012 at Calangute Police Station leading to the registration of FIR No. 152/2012 under Sections 468, 471, and 420 read with Section 34 of the IPC. Upon completion of the investigation, a final report was submitted on 02.04.2016 alleging that the accused along with her late father-in-law had forged the plan and produced it as genuine. The accused sought discharge on the ground that the investigating agency failed to seize and recover the original plan, rendering the chargesheet non-maintainable. (paras 2, 3, 4)
Other courts verdicts
The Judicial Magistrate First Class dismissed the plea of the accused on 21.12.2017 finding sufficient prima facie material to frame charges, and the Additional Sessions Judge subsequently affirmed this view by dismissing Criminal Revision Application No. 11 of 2018 on 28.12.2021. The High Court earlier declined to quash the proceedings in Criminal Writ Petition No. 80 of 2023 on 31.10.2023, but in a subsequent writ petition (Criminal Writ Petition No. 346 of 2024), a Single Judge set aside the charges on 28.08.2024 and discharged the accused solely because the original plan was not annexed to the chargesheet. (paras 4, 5, 6, 11)
Core legal arguments of appellant vs respondent
Counsel for the appellant argued that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC by conducting a mini-trial and sifting through evidence at the stage of framing charge, especially when a Division Bench of the same High Court had previously dismissed an identical challenge which had attained finality. In response, the accused appearing in-person contended that without recovering and producing the original plan alleged to have been forged, the basic ingredients of forgery could never be sustained, making the prolonged fourteen-year prosecution a sheer abuse of process of law that fully justified the exercise of inherent powers for discharge. (paras 7, 8)
Ratio Decidendi
Absence of the original document alleged to have been forged does not, by itself, sound the death knell of the prosecution at the threshold stage of framing of charge, as the investigating agency is neither precluded from proving forgery through circumstantial evidence nor barred from placing additional documents during trial under Section 173(8) CrPC. Furthermore, where a competent court has already considered and rejected a specific ground of challenge against the framing of charge in an earlier writ proceeding between the same parties, the doctrine of issue estoppel precludes the accused from reagitating the self-same ground through successive writ petitions before the same High Court. At the stage of Section 227 and 228 CrPC, the court cannot conduct a roving inquiry or separate grain from the chaff; grave suspicion founded on the chargesheet materials is sufficient to proceed with trial. (paras 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20)
The Supreme Court set aside the impugned discharge judgment of the High Court and restored Criminal Case No. 90/S/2016/F before the Judicial Magistrate First Class with a direction to proceed with the trial in accordance with law. Clarifying that all contentions on merits remain open without being prejudiced by any prima facie observations, the Court directed the trial proceedings to be expedited since the complaint originated in the year 2012. (para 21)
Important Paragraphs
9. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant, the first respondent in-person as well as the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent. We have also perused the material on record that was placed before the trial Court as well as before the High Court. Having given thoughtful consideration to the entire matter, we are of the opinion that the High Court was not justified in quashing the order passed by the learned Magistrate framing charge and the order passed by the Sessions Court upholding that order.
Doctrine of issue estoppel barring subsequent writ petition on the same contention that had been canvassed in earlier writ petition
15. Yet another reason for this Court to interfere is on account of the bar to re-consider an issue that was decided earlier in the same proceedings on the principle of ‘issue estoppel. The Division Bench in the earlier round having considered the ground of absence of the original plan being submitted along with the chargesheet and thereafter having declined to set aside the order framing charge, it was not open for the accused in a subsequent writ petition to again canvass the very same contention that had been canvassed in the earlier writ petition. The principle of ‘issue estoppel’ would apply as a ground of challenge raised earlier but was unsuccessful was sought to be re-agitated before the same Court by the same party.
16. Notwithstanding this position, even on merits of the challenge, we find that the entire premise on which the accused seeks discharge, namely absence of the original plan on the basis of which the charge of forgery was framed does not stand on firm ground. In this context, it would be apposite to refer to the decision in Rama Shanker Lal and others Vs. The State of U.P. The appellants were prosecuted for the offence under Sections 120-B, 468 and 471 of the Penal Code. It was alleged that some insertions/changes were made in a sale deed that was presented for registration. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge acquitted the appellants after holding that there was no proof of forgery of the original sale deed, which was not produced before the Court. The High Court, however, held that the contents of the certified copy of the sale deed were different from what was decided to be sold and what was actually incorporated in the sale deed. The appellants were, thus, convicted for the offences under Sections 468, 471 and 120-B of the Penal Code. Before this Court, it was urged that there was no evidence of forgery of the original sale deed as it was not available on record. In that context, it was observed as under:
“7. The document said to have been forged as already pointed out has not been produced in the case. According to the prosecution that document was taken back by Rama Shankar Lal; whereas according to the accused it was Vishnu Pad Mathur (P.W.1) who had received back the original document from the office of the Sub-Registrar. Both sides desired this Court to draw an adverse inference against the opposite party for the non-production of the original sale deed. On the state of evidence on this point we are disinclined to express any definite opinion on the question as to who had received back the sale deed from the office of the Sub-Registrar though it seems likely that Rama Shankar Lal had taken back the sale deed because the sale deed constituted proof of the title of the vendee. In the circumstances we refrain from raising any presumption from the non-production of the sale deed. However, the fact remains that we have not had the benefit of looking at the document alleged to have been forged, a circumstance which is material and which must to a large extent go against the prosecution. We do not mean to say that in the absence of the document alleged to be forged the Court can in no case hold the offence of forgery to be established, but to claim such a finding in the absence of the document said to be forged, the evidence must in our view exclude all possibility of a reasonable doubt. This is in accord with the general principle of our jurisprudence.”
It was, thus, held that the appellants were aware that the documents they used did not represent the original sale deed. Their conviction under Section 471 of the Penal Code was upheld.
Absence of Original Forged Document before the court not fatal to Prosecution case
17. From the aforesaid decision of the three Judge Bench, it can be seen that the original sale deed alleged to have been forged was not produced before the Court. Despite such position, this Court held that absence of the original sale deed, by itself, could not be the basis to record a finding that in no case, the offence of forgery could not be established. It observed “We do not mean to say that in the absence of the document alleged to be forged the Court can in no case hold the offence of forgery to be established, but to claim such a finding in the absence of the document said to be forged, the evidence must in our view exclude all possibility of a reasonable doubt. This is in accord with the general principle of our jurisprudence.” Thus, absence of production of the original document by itself was not found fatal for the prosecution case. In other words, on the basis of other evidence on record, the prosecution could attempt to prove the offence of forgery, albeit beyond reasonable doubt. This would naturally depend on the facts of each case.
Thus, in view of the decision in Rama Shanker Lal (supra), absence of the original document that is alleged to be forged, by itself, cannot sound the death knell of the prosecution case. It is only after evaluating the entire prosecution material that a finding would be required to be recorded as to whether the charge of forgery has been proved beyond reasonable doubt. That the prosecution could result in acquittal at the conclusion of the trial is a different matter altogether.
Right of Prosecution to Prove Forgery via Circumstantial Evidence at Trial
19. It is, thus, clear that absence of the original document relied upon by the prosecution to bring home the charge of forgery would be a matter to be considered at the trial and its absence by itself cannot be made the basis for quashing the entire prosecution. In other words, the prosecution can attempt to bring home the charge on the basis of circumstantial evidence. However, the entire proceedings would not be liable to be quashed without affording an opportunity to the prosecution to attempt to prove the charge at the trial as seen in the facts of the present case.
Threshold and Scope of Judicial Scrutiny at the Stage of Framing Charges
20. Yet another reason that is apparent from the record is the detailed analysis undertaken by the learned Single Judge while exercising jurisdiction in a challenge to an order passed under Section 227 of the Code. At that stage, it would not be permissible to sift through the entire evidence forming part of the chargesheet with a view to find whether such evidence could result in conviction of the accused. It would be sufficient if a grave suspicion is raised against the accused on the basis of such material so as to sustain a trial. In this regard, we may refer to the broad parameters to be borne in mind while exercising such jurisdiction. In K.H. Kamaladini vs. State, this Court observed as under:
‘As far as the scope of hearing at the time of framing of the charge is concerned, the law is well settled. Firstly, at this stage, the Court can examine only the documents forming part of the charge sheet, and no other material can be considered. Secondly, after considering the material on record, the Court has to decide whether or not there exists a sufficient ground for proceeding with the trial against the appellant. Thirdly, at this stage, the Court cannot sift the evidence forming a part of the chargesheet with a view to separating the grain from the chaff. Fourthly, if the Court is of the view that the evidence without cross-examination or rebuttal shows that the accused has not committed any offence, then an order of discharge must be passed. Lastly, if the evidence adduced before the Court creates a grave suspicion against the accused, the Court will not discharge the accused.’
Conclusion
21. Thus, taking an overall view of the matter, we are satisfied that the learned Single Judge was not justified in exercising jurisdiction and re-appreciating the entire material on record despite the fact that in the earlier round of the same litigation at the behest of the accused, the Division Bench on consideration of the very same submissions had declined to interfere with the order passed by the learned Magistrate framing charge. The accused has again sought to raise a challenge to the order framing charge despite being unsuccessful earlier. For the aforesaid reasons, the judgment dated 28.08.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court in Criminal Writ Petition No.346 of 2024 is set aside. The proceedings in Criminal Case No.90/S/2016/F before the learned Magistrate are restored. The learned Magistrate shall now proceed with the trial in accordance with law. It is clarified that all contentions of the parties including the accused are kept open for being raised at the trial. Any observations made herein shall not cause prejudice to either of the parties. Since the complaint is of the year 2012, the proceedings before the learned Magistrate are expedited. The Criminal Appeal is allowed in aforesaid terms. The pending Interlocutory Applications are disposed of.
Resource
Judgments Cited and Used in the Decision
- Piara Singh v. State of Punjab, 1969 INSC 3: Settled that issue estoppel precludes the reception of evidence to disturb a finding of fact directly decided between the same parties in prior proceedings.
- King v. Wilkes, (1948) 77 C.L.R. 511: Established that ordinary rules of issue estoppel prevent relitigation of an issue determined in favor of an accused in prior proceedings.
- Marz v. The Queen, [1956] 96 C.L.R. 62: Reaffirmed that once an issue has been directly raised and found between the parties, subsequent legally inconsistent allegations cannot be entertained.
- Brown v. Robinson, [1960] S.R. (N.S.W.) 297: Ruled that issue estoppel requires an identical issue to have been distinctly raised and determined in former proceedings.
- Pritam Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1956 SC 415: Endorsed the binding principle of issue estoppel in criminal jurisprudence in India.
- Manipur Administration v. Thokchom Bira Singh, 1964 INSC 67: Affirmed the application and limitations of the doctrine of issue estoppel in criminal trials.
- Rama Shanker Lal and others v. The State of U.P., (1971) 3 SCC 905: Held that non-production of the original forged document is not necessarily fatal to proving the charge of forgery beyond reasonable doubt.
- Central Bureau of Investigation v. R.S. Pai and Another, 2002 INSC 178: Held that Section 173(5) is directory and does not preclude the prosecution from submitting additional documents post-chargesheet.
- Narayan Rao v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, [1958] SCR 283: Interpreted the word ‘shall’ in statutory provisions for forwarding police investigation papers as directory rather than mandatory.
- K.H. Kamaladini v. State, 2025 INSC 745: Summarized the five core principles governing the discharge stage and held that a grave suspicion against the accused warrants framing of charge.
- Ram Prakash Chadha v. The State of Uttar Pradesh, 2024 INSC 522: Held that charge framing requires a prima facie ground emerging from records, not mere suppositions or conjectures.
Acts and Sections Involved
- Indian Penal Code, 1860:
- Section 34: Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention
- Section 120-B: Punishment of criminal conspiracy
- Section 468: Forgery for purpose of cheating
- Section 471: Using as genuine a forged document or electronic record
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973:
- Section 173: Report of police officer on completion of investigationSection 207A: (Pre-1973 procedure referenced via precedent)Section 227: DischargeSection 228: Framing of chargeSection 397: Calling for records to exercise powers of revisionSection 403: (Pre-1973 CrPC / double jeopardy reference in citations)Section 482: Saving of inherent powers of High Court
