In a significant ruling on criminal procedure and forgery trials, the Supreme Court of India has held that the non-production or absence of an original document alleged to be forged cannot by itself be a ground to quash prosecution proceedings or discharge an accused. A Bench comprising Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar set aside an order of the High Court of Bombay at Goa that had discharged an accused after noting that the original building plan was not placed on record with the police chargesheet. The apex court ruled that the prosecution is entitled to establish the charge through other evidence at trial, and further noted that the accused was precluded by the doctrine of issue estoppel from mounting a successive challenge against the framing of charges.
Background of the Case
The dispute arose between neighbours regarding construction work carried out pursuant to License No. 20/72 dated April 13, 1971, issued by the Mapusa Municipal Council. The appellant-informant, Antonetto J D’Souza, alleged that the structure erected by the first respondent-accused, Aldila Braganza, and her late father-in-law was illegal. The informant asserted that the accused relied on an interpolated and forged copy of an approved plan originally drawn by an engineer, Mr. Agnelo Mascarenhas.
The informant filed a complaint before the Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority and subsequently lodged a police report on July 5, 2012. First Information Report No. 152/2012 was registered on July 18, 2012, at Calangute Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 468 (forgery for purpose of cheating), 471 (using as genuine a forged document), and 420 (cheating) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
The accused and her father-in-law secured anticipatory bail from the Sessions Court on June 19, 2013. Following investigation, the police filed a final report on April 2, 2016, stating that the accused had forged a copy of the original plan and submitted it as genuine before the Coastal Zone Management Authority. At the stage of hearing before framing charges, the accused argued before the Judicial Magistrate First Class that the chargesheet could not be maintained without recovering the original plan and forged plan. On December 21, 2017, the Magistrate rejected the plea, finding sufficient prima facie material to frame charges.
The accused challenged the Magistrate’s decision by filing a revision application under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, before the Sessions Court. While that revision was pending, she approached the High Court of Bombay at Goa in 2020 through Criminal Writ Petition No. 458/2020 (re-numbered as Criminal Writ Petition No. 80/2023) under Section 482 of the Code, seeking to quash the FIR and chargesheet. Meanwhile, the Sessions Court dismissed her revision application on December 28, 2021. On October 31, 2023, a Division Bench of the High Court dismissed her writ petition, declining to interfere with the concurrent prima facie findings of the trial court and revisional court. The father-in-law died during the pendency of the matter, resulting in abatement of proceedings against him.
Rather than appealing against the Division Bench’s decision, the accused filed a fresh petition—Criminal Writ Petition No. 346/2024—before a Single Judge of the High Court, re-agitating the grievance that the chargesheet lacked the original plan. On August 28, 2024, the Single Judge accepted this plea, concluded that proceeding with the trial in the absence of the basic document would be an exercise in futility, and discharged the accused. The informant then appealed to the Supreme Court.
Arguments of the Parties
Senior advocate Ms. Vrinda Grover, appearing for the appellant-informant, argued that the Single Judge exceeded the jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. She contended that at the preliminary stage of framing charges, courts cannot conduct a roving inquiry or assess whether the material would ultimately lead to a conviction. She submitted that the statements of the engineer who prepared the plan constituted sufficient prima facie material to proceed. Furthermore, she pointed out that the Division Bench had already rejected the exact same contention on October 31, 2023, and re-agitating the challenge before a Single Judge without challenging the Division Bench order was legally impermissible.
The respondent-accused appeared in-person and supported the High Court’s discharge order. She submitted that without the original plan being recovered or placed on record, the charge of forgery could not stand. She pointed out that nearly fourteen years had elapsed since the registration of the FIR without the original plan being traced, and compelling her to face a criminal trial based solely on photocopies constituted an abuse of the process of law. She argued that the Sessions Court order was not under challenge in the earlier writ petition, thereby justifying the exercise of jurisdiction by the Single Judge.
The Court’s Analysis
The Supreme Court examined the maintainability of the successive challenge as well as the substantive question of whether the absence of an original document warrants discharge at the threshold.
On the procedural aspect, the Bench observed that the accused could not re-agitate the absence of the original plan before a Single Judge after a Division Bench of the same High Court had already rejected that ground on October 31, 2023. Applying the doctrine of issue estoppel, the court cited the three-judge Bench ruling in Piara Singh v. State of Punjab, noting:
“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.”
The Bench held that because the Division Bench had already considered and rejected the challenge regarding the absence of the original plan, the Single Judge erred in entertaining the issue afresh.
On the substantive merits, Justice Chandurkar held that seeking discharge solely because the original plan was missing did not stand on firm legal ground. Relying on the three-judge Bench decision in Rama Shanker Lal and others v. The State of U.P., where a conviction under Section 471 of the Penal Code was sustained despite the original sale deed not being produced in court, the Bench 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.”
Applying this precedent, the Supreme Court explained:
“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.”
The Bench also referred to Central Bureau of Investigation v. R.S. Pai and Another, noting that under Section 173 of the Code, the investigating agency is not precluded from placing additional documents before the trial court at a later stage with the court’s permission.
Regarding the scope of discharge under Section 227 of the Code, the Bench cited K.H. Kamaladini v. State and Ram Prakash Chadha v. The State of Uttar Pradesh, reiterating that a court cannot sift through evidence as if conducting a mini-trial to separate grain from chaff. If the evidence creates a grave suspicion against the accused, the trial court must frame charges.
The Decision
Holding that the Single Judge was not justified in re-appreciating the prosecution material and discharging the accused, the Supreme Court allowed the criminal appeal and set aside the judgment dated August 28, 2024.
The apex court restored Criminal Case No. 90/S/2016/F before the Judicial Magistrate First Class and directed the Magistrate to proceed with the trial in accordance with law. Clarifying that all contentions on merits remain open for trial, the Bench directed that the proceedings be expedited as the original complaint dates back to 2012.
Case Title: Antonetto J D’Souza v. Aldila Braganza and Others
Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. 4092 of 2026
Bench: Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar
Date: September 22, 2026
