document forgery - The Legal Chamber

Supreme Court Rules Against “Mini-Trial” by High Court, Says Forgery & Cheating Case Must Proceed

29Dec

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Rules Against “Mini-Trial” by High Court, Says Forgery & Cheating Case Must Proceed

The Supreme Court held that at the quashing stage under Section 482 CrPC, the High Court cannot conduct a mini-trial or evaluate evidence. If the complaint and prima facie documents disclose cognizable offences, the prosecution must proceed to trial. The merits of allegations, including forgery and cheating, are to be tested through evidence, not nipped in the bud. Facts Of The Case: The complainant, Komal Prasad Shakya, filed a criminal complaint alleging that Rajendra Singh, who had always identified as a General Category 'Sikh', fraudulently obtained a Scheduled Caste ('Sansi') certificate just before the 2008 Guna Assembly elections. Using this certificate, he contested and won from a reserved constituency. The complaint accused Rajendra Singh, his father Amrik Singh, and others in...

Supreme Court Upholds Anticipatory Bail Rejection, Stresses Timely Bail Hearings

The Supreme Court affirmed the denial of anticipatory bail, emphasizing that custodial interrogation may be necessary to establish complicity and intent, even in cases based on documentary evidence. The Court underscored the gravity of allegations involving abuse of official position. It further issued general directions mandating the expeditious disposal of bail applications to uphold the constitutional right to personal liberty under Articles 14 and 21. Facts Of The Case: Based on a complaint concerning fraudulent property transfer, an FIR was registered in 2019 regarding events from 1996. The core allegation was that a sale deed was executed using forged Powers of Attorney, which were purportedly signed by individuals who were already deceased. This sale deed was then used to mutate l...

Supreme Court Denies Specific Performance Over Tainted Agreement: Readiness to Pay Not Enough

The Supreme Court upheld the denial of specific performance, ruling that a material alteration in the sale agreement—visibly apparent from the use of different ink for a property's description—vitiated the contract. Courts are not always obligated to seek expert opinion under Section 73 of the Evidence Act when such an alteration is plainly discernible upon a mere perusal of the document itself. Facts Of The Case: The plaintiff-appellant, Syed Basheer Ahmed, entered into a sale agreement dated July 15, 1984, with the first defendant for the purchase of two properties: Item No. 1 (owned by the first defendant) and Item No. 2 (owned by a third party). The total agreed consideration was Rs. 56,000/-, with an advance of Rs. 1,000/- paid. The agreement stipulated that the sale deed was to be ...