Case Note & Summary
The case involves a criminal revision petition filed by four petitioners challenging an order of the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Dharmapuri, dated 16.02.2026, in Crl.M.P.No.1622 of 2025. The second respondent, Krishnamurthy, had purchased property from the legal heirs of late K.S.Jeganathan under a registered sale deed dated 2023. Subsequently, he discovered that the petitioners had allegedly fabricated an Agreement of Sale dated 28.05.2020, purportedly executed by K.S.Jeganathan, who died on 04.10.2020. A Forensic Examination Report dated 15.04.2025 indicated that the signature on the agreement was forged. Based on this report, the Magistrate forwarded the complaint under Section 175(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) to the police for investigation. The petitioners argued that the second respondent had suppressed the fact of a pending civil suit (O.S.No.237 of 2022) and an application under Section 340 Cr.P.C., and that parallel criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of process. They also contended that an expert opinion is only advisory and must be tested in civil trial. The second respondent countered that the Magistrate's role under Section 175(3) BNSS is limited to ascertaining a prima facie case, and the forensic report clearly established forgery. He relied on the Supreme Court judgment in Accamma Sam Jacob v. State of Karnataka, 2026 INSC 362, which held that pendency of civil proceedings is not a bar to criminal proceedings. The High Court dismissed the revision, holding that the Magistrate correctly forwarded the complaint based on a prima facie case, and that civil and criminal proceedings operate in different spheres. The court found no merit in the petitioners' arguments and upheld the Magistrate's order.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Forwarding of Complaint under BNSS - Section 175(3) BNSS - Prima Facie Case - The Magistrate forwarded a private complaint alleging forgery of a sale agreement to the police for investigation based on a Forensic Examination Report showing forged signature. The court held that the Magistrate's duty under Section 175(3) BNSS is only to ascertain whether a prima facie case is made out, and the expert report sufficiently established a prima facie case. (Paras 2-8) B) Criminal Law - Parallel Proceedings - Civil and Criminal - No Bar - The petitioners argued that a civil suit and a Section 340 Cr.P.C. application were pending regarding the same document. The court, relying on Accamma Sam Jacob v. State of Karnataka, 2026 INSC 362, held that pendency of civil proceedings is not a bar to initiation or continuation of criminal proceedings as both operate in different spheres. (Paras 4-8) C) Evidence - Expert Opinion - Prima Facie Value - The petitioners contended that an expert opinion is only advisory and must be tested during trial. The court held that at the stage of forwarding a complaint under Section 175(3) BNSS, the Magistrate can rely on an expert report to form a prima facie opinion, and the same does not require a full trial at that stage. (Paras 4-8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the pendency of a civil suit and the existence of a Section 340 Cr.P.C. application bar the Magistrate from forwarding a complaint under Section 175(3) BNSS based on a forensic report indicating forgery.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the criminal revision petition, upholding the order of the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Dharmapuri, dated 16.02.2026 in Crl.M.P.No.1622 of 2025, which forwarded the complaint under Section 175(3) BNSS to the police for investigation.
Law Points
- Pendency of civil proceedings is not a bar to criminal proceedings
- Forwarding of complaint under Section 175(3) BNSS requires only prima facie case
- Expert opinion can be basis for prima facie case
- Suppression of fact does not vitiate order if other material supports it
