2026 INSC 1032 Page 1 of 24

Criminal Appeal No.4092 of 2026

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 4092 OF 2026

ANTONETTO J D ’SOUZA APPELLANT

VERSUS

ALDILA BRAGANZA AND OTHERS RESPONDENT S

J U D G M E N T

ATUL S. CHANDURKAR, J.

1. The first respondent-accused having been discharged for the

offence punishable under Sections 468, 471 and 420 of the Indian

Penal Code

1, the appellant-informant has challenged the same in

the present proceedings.

2. The informant and the accused are neighbours. The accused

along with her father-in-law, who was then alive, had undertaken

construction pursuant to License No.20/72 dated 13.04.1971

issued by Mapusa Municipal Council. According to the informant,

the structure erected by the accused and her father-in-law was

illegal. The accused and her father-in-law had relied upon a plan

1

For short, ‘the Penal Code’

Page 2 of 24

Criminal Appeal No.4092 of 2026

that had been interpolated and was a forged copy of the original

approved plan drawn by Mr. Agnelo Mascarenhas. The informant,

therefore, filed a complaint with the Goa Coastal Zone

Management Authority. A notice was issued by the said authority

to the accused, who filed their reply. The informant, thereafter, on

05.07.2012 lodged a report with Calangute Police Station. A First

Information Report was, accordingly, registered on 18.07.2012 for

the offence punishable under Sections 468, 471 and Section 420

read with Section 34 of the Penal Code.

3. The accused along with her father-in-law approached the

Sessions Court for grant of anticipatory bail. Say of the Police

authorities was called and in its reply dated 14.03.2013, the Police

Sub-Inspector while opposing the prayer for anticipatory bail

submitted that custodial interrogation of the accused was

necessary for recovering the original plan as well as the forged

plan. The Sessions Court, however, on 19.06.2013 granted

anticipatory bail to the accused and her father-in-law by imposing

conditions.

4. On completion of investigation, a final report was filed on

02.04.2016. As per the same, it was stated that the accused and

her father-in-law in furtherance of their common intention had

Page 3 of 24

Criminal Appeal No.4092 of 2026

forged a copy of the original plan and submitted the same as

genuine in the office of the Goa Coastal Zone Management

Authority. The accused were then heard by the learned Judicial

Magistrate First Class

2 before framing of the charge. It was urged

on behalf of the accused that without recovering the original plan

and the forged plan, the chargesheet had been filed against them.

In absence of original documents, the chargesheet itself was not

maintainable and, thus, no charge could be framed. The learned

Magistrate, however, was not convinced by the aforesaid

contention and by his order dated 21.12.2017 held that there was

prima facie material on record to frame charge against the accused.

5. Being aggrieved, the accused filed a revision application

under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure , 1973

3

raising a challenge to the order passed by the Magistrate. During

pendency of the revision application, the accused approached the

High Court of Bombay at Goa by filing Criminal Writ Petition

No.458/2020 (re-numbered as 80/2023), raising a challenge to

First Information Report No.152/2012 as well as the chargesheet

filed before the learned Magistrate. The High Court noted that the

discharge application filed by the accused was rejected by the trial

2

For short, ‘Magistrate’

3

For short, ‘the Code’

Page 4 of 24

Criminal Appeal No.4092 of 2026

Court in 2017 while a challenge to it was raised in 2020. In the

meanwhile, the revision application preferred by the accused had

been dismissed by the Sessions Court on 28.12.2021. The order

passed by the revisional Court had not been challenged in the writ

petition. In that view of the matter, the High Court declined to

interfere with the order passed by the learned Magistrate and

rejected the writ petition on 31.10.2023. During pendency of the

said proceedings, the father-in-law of the accused expired and,

hence, the proceedings abated against him. The charges were ,

accordingly, directed to be framed against the accused.

6. The accused, thereafter, filed Criminal Writ Petition

No.346/2024 again raising a challenge to the orders passed by the

learned Magistrate framing charge as well as the order passed by

the Sessions Court rejecting the revision petition filed by her. It

was yet again urged before the High Court that the original plan

had not been placed on record to indicate that the accused had

forged the same. Merely on the basis of photocopies of the plan,

the charge would not be proved. This contention made on behalf

of the accused found favour with the High Court. It held that for

establishing the ingredients of the offence alleged, it must be

shown that the original document had been forged. The

Page 5 of 24

Criminal Appeal No.4092 of 2026

chargesheet ought to indicate that copy of the plan produced by

the accused along with her reply was a forged document. Since the

investigating agency failed to attach the original plan to the

chargesheet to establish that such original plan existed and that

its copy was thereafter altered and presented, proceeding with the

trial would be of no consequence. Since the basic documents on

which the case of the prosecution rested were missing and only on

the basis of suspicion the case was being prosecuted, the same

was not sufficient to frame charge against the accused. For these

reasons, the order passed by the learned Magistrate as upheld by

the Sessions Court was set aside. The accused was, thus,

discharged for the offence punishable under Sections 468, 471 and

420 of the Penal Code. Being aggrieved, the informant has

approached this Court.

7. Ms. Vrinda Grover, learned counsel for the informant

submitted that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction under

Section 482 of the Code and interfered with the order passed by

the learned Magistrate framing charge, which order was upheld by

the Sessions Court. At the stage of framing of charge, the learned

Magistrate was not required to make a roving inquiry with regard

to the material on record and also examine the genuineness of the

Page 6 of 24

Criminal Appeal No.4092 of 2026

documents filed by the prosecuting agency. Whether the plan as

submitted by the accused was forged was a matter of trial and at

this preliminary stage, such inquiry was not permissible. The

learned Magistrate as well as the Sessions Court having prima facie

considered the prosecution material, which included the

statements of the Engineer, who had prepared the plan, the same

was sufficient to proceed with the trial against the accused.

Referring to the earlier order dated 31.10.2023 passed by the High

Court in Criminal Writ Petition No.80/2023, it was submitted that

the High Court rightly did not interfere with the order framing

charge. Despite rejection of the said writ petition, the accused filed

another writ petition under Section 482 of the Code and sought to

reagitate her prayers. Without noticing the earlier order, the High

Court proceeded to discharge the accused. It was, thus, submitted

that considering the orders passed by the learned Magistrate

framing charge that was upheld by the Sessions Court, the High

Court was not justified in interfering with the same and thereafter

discharging the accused. It was, thus, prayed that the impugned

order be set aside and the trial be permitted to proceed on merits.

8. The accused appeared in -person and supported the

impugned order of the High Court. She submitted that since the

Page 7 of 24

Criminal Appeal No.4092 of 2026

original plan had not been placed on record along with the

chargesheet, the view taken by the High Court was correct and it

did not call for any interference. She referred to various documents

on record including the stand of the prosecution that indicated

that the original plan had not been recovered. In absence of the

original plan being placed on record of the proceedings, the charge

of forgery could never have been framed so as to try the accused.

The learned Magistrate as well as the learned Judge of the Sessions

Court failed to notice this basic infirmity. Nothing precluded the

prosecution from securing the original plan and placing it on

record along with the chargesheet. Though a period of almost

fourteen years had passed since lodging of the First Information

Report, the original plan had neither been traced nor recovered.

Requiring the accused to face the trial in these circumstances

amounted to abuse of the process of law. The order passed by the

Sessions Court was not the subject matter of challenge in the

earlier round of the proceedings. The High Court was, therefore,

justified in exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code

and discharging the accused. No interference with the impugned

order was, thus, called for. She, therefore, submitted that the

criminal appeal be dismissed.

Page 8 of 24

Criminal Appeal No.4092 of 2026

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.

10. The present proceedings have a chequered history. According

to the informant, the accused and her father-in-law were his

neighbours and they had undertaken construction of a structure,

which the informant alleged was illegal. The building plan on

which the accused and her father-in-law had relied upon had been

interpolated and it was a forged copy of the original approved plan

drawn by Mr. Agnelo Mascarenhas. On the basis of the informant’s

complaint dated 05.07.2012, a First Information Report was

registered for the offence punishable under Sections 468, 471 and

420 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code. After the investigation

was completed and the final report was filed, the learned

Magistrate on 21.12.2017 heard the accused and her father-in-law

Page 9 of 24

Criminal Appeal No.4092 of 2026

and directed framing of charge for the offence punishable under

Sections 468, 471, 420 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code. At

this stage, it would be necessary to refer to the proceedings in

Criminal Writ Petition No.458 of 2020 filed under Section 482 of

the Code. The accused and her father-in-law challenged the First

Information Report as well as the chargesheet in the said writ

petition. It was their contention that the First Information Report

did not disclose commission of any cognizable offence and that no

documents were placed on record along with the chargesheet to

frame charges. In the said criminal writ petition, the following

prayers were made:

“PRAYERS

Under the circumstances, it is prayed that:

A. That the Hon'ble Court be pleased to:

(a) Cancel complaint dated 5/7/12;

(b) Quash and set aside FIR no. 152/2012 dated 18 July 2012

registered by Calangute Police Station, Calangute, Goa, and

(c) Quash and set aside Charge Sheet No. 41/2016, pending before

the J.M.F.C at Mapusa.

B. For the Director General & Inspector General to initiate

departmental enquiry into the matter of false FIR filed by the

Calangute Police and submit the report to the Registrar General

within one month from today.

C. For the State to file Affidavit /Compliance report by placing true

facts, about the complaint letter, about the FIR registered in the said

connection which further led to the Charge Sheet registered and place

all the said documents being, the Complaint letter / FIR and Charge

Sheet in its original before the Hon’ble Court at Mapusa.

D. For the State / Police department to pay cost of Rs.5,00,000/- to

the petitioner, which costs to be recovered from the officers/ persons

who are found guilty of the false complaint/ FIR/ Charge Sheet after

enquiry.

Page 10 of 24

Criminal Appeal No.4092 of 2026

E. For costs of this Petition;

F. Any other such order that this Hon'ble Court may deem fit.”

11. During pendency of the said proceedings, the father-in-law of

the accused expired. The writ petition was then amended and the

accused placed on record subsequent events that had occurred in

the meanwhile. The proceedings were re-numbered as Criminal

Writ Petition No.80 of 2023. The Division Bench of the High Court

by its order dated 31.10.2023 refused to interfere with the First

Information Report and the chargesheet filed before the learned

Magistrate. The observations in paragraphs 1, 4 and 13 to 18 of

the said order being relevant are reproduced hereunder:

“1. The petitioner is challenging the First Information Report

No.152 of 2012 and the chargesheet filed before the Magistrate by

respondent No.2, under Section 482 of CrPC on the ground that the

FIR does not disclose any commission of cognizable offence and that

no documents are placed along with the chargesheet to frame

charges.

4. Ms. Braganza, the petitioner, strongly contended that there are

no documents and, more specifically, the alleged plan placed on

record along with the FIR or chargesheet in order to constitute

offences as alleged of forgery, cheating, using forged documents, etc.

The chargesheet also failed to disclose the relevant material, and

therefore according to her, such proceedings are clearly an abuse of

process of law and need to be quashed and set aside. She further

submitted that an application was filed before the trial Court, thereby

directing the investigating agency to produce the document/plan;

however, the trial Court observed that in the absence of such

documents, a charge cannot be framed.

13. As pointed out by the learned Counsel for the respondent, an

order was passed on 21/12/2017 by the learned Magistrate and that

too after hearing the arguments before the charge. In the said order,

the learned Magistrate has considered the ingredients of sections as

well as the documents placed along with the chargesheet and

observed that the statements of the witnesses and the documents

available on record prima facie prove that the second plan is forged

Page 11 of 24

Criminal Appeal No.4092 of 2026

by superimposing the alteration on the copy of the approved plan to

justify the illegal construction and the same was used as genuine

before the Village Panchayat at Calangute. Accordingly, prima facie

material is placed on record to frame charges against the accused

persons for the offences under Section 468, 471, 420 r/w 34 IPC.

14. The present petition was filed in the year 2020 which is clear

from the record. The amended petition shows that the trial Court

rejected discharge application filed by the petitioner in the year 2017.

Similarly, an appeal filed was also rejected by the Appellate Court. In

paragraph 24(c)(amended), the petitioner claimed that Criminal

Appeal No.11 of 2018 was filed challenging the order dated

21/12/2017 was rejected. It is her contention that the document in

question which is supposed to be forged is neither in possession of

the investigating agency nor with GCZMA nor with the Panchayat and

therefore there cannot be any charge of forging such documents and

prosecuting the petitioner on it.

15. The fact remains that there are observations of the learned

Magistrate about a prima facie case made out for framing of charged,

vide its order dated 21/12/2017. This order was challenged by the

petitioner in Criminal Revision Application No.11 of 2018 before the

Sessions Court. The Additional Sessions Judge, Mapusa, vide its

decision dated 28/12/2021, dismissed the said revision and

confirmed the order of the learned Magistrate directing to frame

charges.

16. When two authorities dealing with the matter found that there

are prima facie material/evidence/documents to frame charges

against the petitioner, it would be improper on the part of this Court

and that too under Section 482 of CrPC to upset such orders and that

too on the allegations found in the petition.

17. The petitioner did not submit as to whether the order of the

revisional Court upholding the order of the trial Court is challenged

by her before the appropriate Court. Be that as it may, the material

placed before the trial Court and, more specifically, in the

chargesheet is found to be prima facie sufficient to frame charges.

Once the Court dealing with the matter comes to such a prima facie

conclusion, the accused therein has a right to challenge it either by

filing a revision petition or other proceedings in accordance with law.

The petitioner challenged the order of the trial Court by filing a

revision petition but was considered unsuccessful. The said order of

the revisional Court is not challenged in the present petition. Thus,

while dealing with the powers under Section 482 of CrPC, we are not

inclined to interfere with the judicial orders passed by the trial Court

and that too after hearing the petitioner and on perusal of the

contents of the charge sheet. This would be circumventing the settled

procedure as laid down in CrPC as such a course is not available to

the petitioner in this proceedings.

18. The material collected by the investigating agency is already

produced along with the chargesheet; the trial Court as well as the

revisional Court, found that such material is sufficient for the

purpose of framing of charges. Thus, in sum and substance, t he

Page 12 of 24

Criminal Appeal No.4092 of 2026

contention of the petitioner that the FIR is false and that there are no

documents to prove the charge cannot be looked into in the present

proceedings.”

12. A reading of the aforesaid order would indicate that it was the

principal contention of the accused that in the absence of the

original plan being made part of the chargesheet, charge for the

offence of forgery could not have been framed. This contention was

dealt with by the High Court by observing that there was prima

facie material on record to frame the charge and, hence,

interference was declined. This order dated 31.10.2023 attained

finality as it was not challenged any further by the accused.

13. It appears that instead of raising a challenge to the order

dated 31.10.2023 passed in Criminal Writ Petition No.80 of 2023,

the accused yet again preferred Criminal Writ Petition No.346 of

2024. In this writ petition, the order dated 21.12.2017 passed by

the learned Magistrate framing charge as well as the order dated

28.12.2021 passed by the Sessions Court dismissing Criminal

Revision Application No.11 of 2018 was challenged. The accused

re-agitated the same challenge, namely, absence of the original

plan on the basis of which the charge of forgery had been framed.

The fact that the earlier criminal writ petition preferred by the

accused had been dismissed was brought to the notice of the Court

Page 13 of 24

Criminal Appeal No.4092 of 2026

which fact has been recorded by the learned Single Judge in his

order dated 01.07.2024. The learned Single Judge further

observed that though the informant was a party to the criminal

writ petition, it was not necessary to issue notice to him at that

stage as the chargesheet was filed by the State. Be that as it may,

on 28.08.2024, the learned Single Judge proceeded to hold that in

the absence of the basic documents on which the case of the

prosecution rested, the material on record was not sufficient to

frame charge against the accused. On that basis, the order passed

by the learned Magistrate framing charge as well as the order

passed by the Sessions Court in the revision application came to

be set aside and the accused was discharged for the offence

punishable under Sections 468, 471 and 420 of the Penal Code.

As noted above, this order has been impugned in the present

criminal appeal.

14. What can be immediately gathered from the record is that the

initial challenge raised by the accused and her father-in-law to the

First Information Report as well as the chargesheet was

unsuccessful with the dismissal of Criminal Writ Petition No.80 of

2023 on 31.10.2023. The principal ground of challenge therein

was absence of the original plan alleged to have been forged by the

Page 14 of 24

Criminal Appeal No.4092 of 2026

accused. The order of the Division Bench refusing to set aside the

order framing charge was, thus, binding on the accused. A fresh

attempt to raise a similar challenge could not have been

undertaken by the accused without challenging the order dated

31.10.2023 passed in Criminal Writ Petition No.80 of 2023. While

preferring the subsequent writ petition, the accused urged that

since it was observed in paragraph 17 of the order of the Division

Bench dated 31.10.2023 that the order of the revisional court

upholding the order passed by the learned Magistrate framing

charge had not been challenged, a fresh challenge was again being

mounted by the accused. We are doubtful as to whether such

course could have been adopted by the accused. The order framing

charge by the learned Magistrate was dated 21.12.2017. Though

the accused filed a revision application before the Sessions Court

on 03.03.2018 challenging the said order, she simultaneously filed

Criminal Writ Petition No.458 of 2020 on 04.02.2020 during

pendency of the revision application challenging the very same

order. When the Division Bench of the High Court decided

Criminal Writ Petition No.80 of 2023 (as re-numbered) on

31.10.2023, the criminal revision application had already been

dismissed on 28.12.2021. This fact finds mention in the order of

Page 15 of 24

Criminal Appeal No.4092 of 2026

the Division Bench. One of the grounds for not interfering with the

order framing charge was that the said order had been upheld by

the Sessions Court. This would not mean that it was open for the

accused to again challenge the order passed by the learned

Magistrate framing charge as well as the order of the Sessions

Court dismissing the revision application. No such liberty was

granted to the accused in the earlier round of litigation. The

learned Single Judge, in fact, failed to take into consideration the

earlier adjudication by the Division Bench by which it declined to

interfere with the order framing charge passed by the learned

Magistrate.

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

Page 16 of 24

Criminal Appeal No.4092 of 2026

sought to be re-agitated before the same Court by the same party.

To elaborate this aspect, we may refer to the decision of the three

Judge Bench in Piara Singh Vs. State of Punjab

4, wherein it is

held as under:

“It should be stated that the principle of issue-estoppel is different

from the principle of double jeopardy or autre fois acquit as embodied

in s. 403 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The principle of issue-

estoppel is a different principle, viz. where an issue of fact has been

tried by a competent court on a former occasion and a finding has

been reached in favour of an accused, such a finding would constitute

an estoppel or res judicata against the prosecution not as a bar to the

trial and conviction of the accused for a different or distinct offence

but as precluding the reception of evidence to disturb that finding of

fact when the accuses is tried subsequently even for a different

offence which might be permitted by the terms of s. 403(2), Cr.P.C.

Speaking on the principle of estoppel Dixon, J. said in King v.

Wilkes

5:

"Whilst there is not a great deal of authority upon the subject,

it appears to me that there is nothing wrong in the view that

there is an issue-estoppel, if it appears by record of itself of as

explained by proper evidence, that the same point was

determined in favour of a prisoner in a previous criminal trial

which is brought in view on a second criminal trial of the same

prisoner. That seems to be implied in the language used by

Wright, J. in R. v. Ollis which in effect I have adopted in the

foregoing statement...... There must be a prior proceeding

determined against the Crown necessarily involving an issue

which again arises in a subsequent proceeding by the Crown

against the same prisoner. The allegation of the Crown in the

subsequent proceeding must itself be inconsistent with the

acquittal of the prisoner in the previous proceeding. But if such

a condition of affairs arises I see no reason why the ordinary

rules of issue estoppel should not apply. Such rules are not to

be confused with those of res judicata, which in criminal

proceedings are expressed in the pleas of autre fois acquit and

autre fois convict. They are pleas which are concerned with the

judicial determination of an alleged criminal liability and in the

case of conviction with the substitution of a new liability. Issue-

estoppel is concerned with the judicial establishment of a

proposition of law or fact between parties. It depends upon well-

known doctrines which control the relitigation of issues which

are settled by prior litigation."

4

1969 INSC 3

5

77 C.L.R. 511 at pp. 518-519

Page 17 of 24

Criminal Appeal No.4092 of 2026

In a subsequent case Marz v. The Queen

6, Dixon, C.J. stated as

follows :-

"The law which gives effect to issue -estoppels is not

concerned with the correctness or incorrectness of the finding

which amounts to an estoppel still less with the processes of

reasoning by which the finding was reached in fact....... It is

enough that an issue or issues have been directly raised and

found. Once that is done, then, so long as the finding stands, if

there by any subsequent litigation between the same parties, no

allegations legally, inconsistent with the finding may be made

by one of them against the other. Res judicate pro veritate

accipitur. And .... this applies in pleas of the Crown."

Again in Brown v. Robinson

7 Herron and Maguire, JJ. said:

"Before issue-estoppel can succeed in a case such as this

there must be prior proceeding determined against the Crown

necessarily involving an issue which again arises in a

subsequent proceeding by the Crown against the same

prisoner.... It depends upon an issue or issues having been

distinctly raised and found in the former proceeding".

The principle of issue-estoppel has received the approval of this Court

in Pritam Singh v. State of Punjab

8 and Manipur Administration

v. Thokchom Bira Singh

9 and several later decisions. But the

principle cannot be invoked in the present case because the parties

are different and the decision upon any issue as between State and

Nand Lal Sehgal in the same litigation cannot operate as binding

upon the State with regard to present appellant. For issue-estoppel

to arise there must have been distinctly raised and inevitably decided

the same issue in the earlier proceedings between the same parties.”

On this count too, we find that the impugned order is

unsustainable in law and, thus, liable to be set aside.

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

6

[1956] 96 C.L.R. 62

7

[1960] S.R. (N.S.W.) 297, 301

8

AIR 1956 SC 415

9

1964 INSC 67

Page 18 of 24

Criminal Appeal No.4092 of 2026

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.

10. The

appellants were prosecuted for the offence under Sections 120-B,

420, 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

10

(1971) 3 SCC 905

Page 19 of 24

Criminal Appeal No.4092 of 2026

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.

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

Page 20 of 24

Criminal Appeal No.4092 of 2026

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.

18. This position is buttressed in view of the decision of the three

Judge Bench in Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. R.S. Pai and

Another

11 wherein this Court considered the question as to

whether the prosecution could produce additional documents

which are gathered during investigation after submitting the

charge-sheet. After referring to Section 173 of the Code, it was held

11

2002 INSC 178

Page 21 of 24

Criminal Appeal No.4092 of 2026

that in absence of any specific provision in this regard, in a given

case, additional documents could be produced even after filing of

the chargesheet. The following observations are material:

“From the aforesaid sub-sections, it is apparent that normally, the

Investigating Officer is required to produce all the relevant documents

at the time of submitting the charge-sheet. At the same time, as there

is no specific prohibition, it cannot be held that the additional

documents cannot be produced subsequently. If some mistake is

committed in not producing the relevant documents at the time of

submitting the report or charge-sheet, it is always open to the

Investigating Officer to produce the same with the permission of the

Court. In our view, considering the preliminary stage of prosecution

and the context in which Police Officer is required to forward to the

Magistrate all the documents or the relevant extracts thereof on

which prosecution proposes to rely, the word ‘shall’ used in sub-

section (5) cannot be interpreted as mandatory, but as directory.

Normally, the documents gathered during the investigation upon

which the prosecution wants to rely are required to be forwarded to

the Magistrate, but if there is some omission, it would not mean that

the remaining documents cannot be produced subsequently.

Analogous provision under Section 173(4) of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1898 was considered by this Court in Narayan Rao v. The

State of Andhra Pradesh [(1958) SCR 283 at 293] and it was held that

the word ’shall’ occurring in sub-section 4 of Section 173 and sub-

section 3 of Section 207A is not mandatory but only directory.

Further, the scheme of sub-section (8) of Section 173 also makes it

abundantly clear that even after the charge-sheet is submitted,

further investigation, if called for, is not precluded. If further

investigation is not precluded then there is no question of not

permitting the prosecution to produce additional documents which

were gathered prior to or subsequent to investigation. In such cases,

there cannot be any prejudice to the accused. Hence, the impugned

order passed by the Special Court cannot be sustained.”

Such a course is, thus, not precluded.

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

Page 22 of 24

Criminal Appeal No.4092 of 2026

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.

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

12, 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

12

2025 INSC 745

Page 23 of 24

Criminal Appeal No.4092 of 2026

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.”

In Ram Prakash Chadha Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh

13,

this Court after referring to Section 227 of the Code held that the

question of framing a charge would arise only in a case where the

Court satisfies itself about existence of a prima facie case revealing

from ‘the record of the case and the documents submitted

therewith’ against the accused. The conclusion on existence or

otherwise of a ground to proceed against the accused concerned

cannot be based on mere suppositions or suspicions or conjectures

not founded on material available before the Court.

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

13

2024 INSC 522

Page 24 of 24

Criminal Appeal No.4092 of 2026

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.

…...………………………..J.

[ UJJAL BHUYAN ]

.…..………………………..J.

[ATUL S. CHANDURKAR]

NEW DELHI,

SEPTEMBER 22, 2026.