Court Rules Civil Courts Can Use Inherent Powers under Section 151 of CPC to Forward Complaints for Serious Offences Like Forgery, Rejecting Petition to Quash FIR in Family Land Dispute
In a significant judgment delivered on September 11, 2026, the Madhya Pradesh High Court (Jabalpur Bench) clarified the authority of civil courts in cases involving serious criminal offences such as forgery. The Court held that civil courts possess inherent powers under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) to direct parties or witnesses to file complaints with the police, leading to the registration of a First Information Report (FIR), even though the CPC does not explicitly provide for such directions.
The case arose from a family dispute over agricultural land in District Dhar, Madhya Pradesh. Petitioners Himmat Singh and others challenged the registration of FIR No. 242/2026 under sections 61(2), 336(3), 338, and 340(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, related to alleged forgery of a will dated February 19, 2019, which was submitted during civil litigation. The civil suit (RCS No. A-34/2022) was filed by the petitioners' sisters claiming title over the disputed land.
During the civil proceedings, the trial court found that the will was forged after the suit's institution and directed the police to register an FIR against the petitioners. The petitioners argued that findings in civil cases are based on a "preponderance of probabilities" and should not form the sole basis for criminal prosecution, which requires proof "beyond reasonable doubt." They contended that since the alleged forgery pertained to a document produced in court, the trial court should have followed the mandatory procedure under Section 379 of BNSS (analogous to Section 340 CrPC) before initiating criminal proceedings. Moreover, they claimed that the trial court's direction violated principles of natural justice as no opportunity was given to meet the accusations of forgery and criminal conspiracy.
The court examined whether the forgery was committed within court proceedings or outside. Citing the Supreme Court's ruling in Sachida Nand Singh v. State of Bihar (1998) 2 SCC 493, the bench noted that if forgery occurs outside court, preliminary inquiry under Section 340 CrPC / Section 379 BNSS is not mandatory, and police can directly register the FIR. As the forgery in this case was committed outside court, no preliminary inquiry was required.
Addressing the civil court's power to direct FIR registration, the High Court observed that although CPC does not expressly empower civil courts to do so, no prohibition exists against such directions. The court held that inherent powers under Section 151 CPC authorize civil courts to issue directions "ex debito justitiae" (as a matter of justice) in the interest of justice. The court emphasized that forgery amounts to fraud, and civil courts must have the ability to unearth fraud and bring offenders to justice. Referring to the Supreme Court decision in Manohar Lal Chopra v. Rai Bahadur Rao Raja Seth Hiralal AIR 1962 SC 527, the court clarified that inherent powers cannot override the Code but can operate within its limits to achieve justice.
The court expressed concern over the reluctance of civil courts to direct police action in forgery cases, resulting in offenders escaping punishment when FIRs are quashed on grounds that the dispute is civil in nature. It stressed that civil courts' power to direct FIR registration in appropriate cases would serve as a deterrent to fraud and forgery.
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the petition to quash the FIR, upholding the civil court's direction to the police. The judgment reiterates the principle that findings in civil proceedings alone cannot justify criminal prosecution unless independently established, but serious offences like forgery warrant police investigation initiated on the direction of civil courts under their inherent jurisdiction.
This ruling clarifies the procedural safeguards and powers available in forgery cases involving documents produced in civil suits and strengthens the enforcement of criminal laws to combat fraud in civil disputes.
Bottom Line:
A civil court has the inherent power under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, to issue directions for forwarding a complaint to the police in cases involving serious offences such as forgery, even in the absence of explicit provisions in the Civil Procedure Code.
Statutory provision(s):
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Sections 61(2), 336(3), 338, 340(2), 379; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Section 151; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 340 (referred).
