SC Restores Probe in Fake E-Stamp Forgery Case, Slams High Court for Premature Quashing

The appellant lodged a private complaint before the Judicial Magistrate, Belagavi, alleging that the respondents had forged a rent agreement on fake E-Stamp paper to mislead the High Court and secure possession of a disputed property. The alleged forgery surfaced during the pendency of an appeal over ownership of the same property, where accused No. 1 and 2 produced a rent agreement dated 20 May 2013 that was later found to have been created on a fraudulent E-Stamp serial number. Based on this complaint, the Magistrate ordered an investigation under Section 156(3) CrPC, and an FIR was registered for offences under Sections 120B, 201, 419, 471, 468, and 420 IPC.

HC Held: The High Court quashed the Magistrate’s order through two separate judgments in 2019 and 2021, terming the referral to police as “mechanical.” The complainant appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the fake E-Stamp and fabricated rent receipts clearly warranted a police probe and that the High Court had ignored key material, including an official finding from the Stamps Department confirming the E-Stamp’s falsity.

Central Issue: Whether the Judicial Magistrate’s referral of the complaint for investigation under Section 156(3) CrPC was justified, and whether the Karnataka High Court erred in quashing the FIR despite clear prima facie evidence of forgery.

SC Held: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside both High Court orders, and restored FIR No. 12 of 2018, directing the Khade Bazar Police to complete the investigation expeditiously. The Court held that the Magistrate had sufficient material to invoke Section 156(3) CrPC and that the High Court had wrongly interfered by focusing on the Magistrate’s use of the word “further” instead of assessing the substance of the order.

The Court emphasized that the rent agreement was indeed shown to be executed on an E-Stamp already used in an unrelated transaction, establishing a clear prima facie case of fabrication. Reiterating Ramdev Food Products v. State of Gujarat (2015) and Neeharika Infrastructure v. State of Maharashtra (2021), the Bench reaffirmed that when allegations disclose cognizable offenses, courts should not thwart investigation at the threshold.

To Read full judgment, Download PDF Given Below