The Supreme Court of India has set aside a Himachal Pradesh High Court order that quashed an FIR involving allegations of forgery and fraud, ruling that courts should not terminate criminal proceedings prematurely when vital forensic evidence is still being analyzed.
A Bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta observed that quashing an FIR while the genuineness of signatures is being examined by a State Forensic Science Laboratory (SFSL) constitutes an improper exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).
Background of the Case
The case originated from FIR No. 8/22 lodged by the appellant-complainant, Sharla Bazliel, at Police Station State CID, Shimla. The complainant alleged that the respondents—Baldev Thakur, Daljit Singh, and Jienpuri Kamsuon—entered into a criminal conspiracy to grab the ancestral property and bank savings of her late father, Dr. G.B. Bazliel.
According to the complainant, the accused took advantage of her father’s weak mental and physical health following her mother’s death in 2013. It was alleged that the respondents fraudulently persuaded her father to appoint Daljit Singh as a bank nominee and transferred nearly ₹1.18 crores to his accounts. Furthermore, ancestral land admeasuring approximately 50 bighas was allegedly transferred to Baldev Thakur through sale deeds based on false recitals and forged signatures, significantly below market rates.
The High Court’s Decision
On January 8, 2024, a Single Judge of the Himachal Pradesh High Court allowed a petition filed by the accused under Section 482 CrPC, quashing the FIR. The High Court held that the ingredients of fraud, misrepresentation, or forgery were not made out and characterized the allegations as “speculations” insufficient to constitute cognizable offences.
Supreme Court’s Analysis and Observations
The Supreme Court criticized the High Court for interfering “at the very threshold” while the investigation was in full swing. The Bench noted that the Investigating Officer had already forwarded questioned documents to the SFSL, Junga, for forensic examination before the High Court passed its order.
The Court stated:
“We may observe that where allegations of forgery are set out in the FIR and Investigating Agency has undertaken the exercise of getting the disputed documents examined through the handwriting expert, an order quashing the FIR without awaiting the outcome of the handwriting expert’s report would be totally unjustified.”
The Bench further noted that during the pendency of the appeals, SFSL reports dated June 26 and August 31, 2024, were received. These reports confirmed that the signatures on the questioned nomination and bank documents did not match the admitted signatures of the complainant’s father, appearing instead to be “facsimile stamps.”
The Court also rejected the High Court’s reliance on the case of Mir Nagvi Askari v. CBI (2009), stating it was neither relevant nor applicable to the present facts. The Bench emphasized that because the proof of forgery depended on the comparison conducted by experts, the prosecution could not be “stifled at the threshold.”
Final Decision
Setting aside the High Court’s order, the Supreme Court held that the allegations in the FIR and the material collected—including the subsequent SFSL findings—were “amply sufficient to proceed against the accused.”
The Bench directed the Investigating Officer to conclude the investigation and file the result at the earliest. If a charge sheet (under Section 173(2) CrPC or Section 193(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) has already been filed, the trial court is directed to proceed as per law.
Case Details:
- Case Title: Sharla Bazliel v. Baldev Thakur and Others
- Case No.: Criminal Appeal No(s). ___ of 2026 (Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No. 3533 of 2024)
- Bench: Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta
- Date of Judgment: March 17, 2026
