Introduction:

In Gopal Banerjee & Anr. v. State of West Bengal & Anr. (CRR 541 of 2025), the Calcutta High Court declined to interfere with a Magistrate’s order refusing to discharge two accused persons in a criminal case involving allegations of forgery and cheating in a land transaction. Justice Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee, while dismissing the revision petition, reiterated a settled but often contested principle of criminal jurisprudence: at the stage of framing of charge or consideration of discharge, the court is not required to conduct a meticulous appreciation of evidence or hold a mini-trial. It is sufficient if the materials on record disclose a prima facie case giving rise to a “grave suspicion” against the accused.

The Court emphasized that where allegations point to possible alteration or tampering of documents and such suspicion is supported by seizure and forensic opinion, the matter must proceed to trial. The judgment thus reaffirms the limited scope of judicial scrutiny at the discharge stage and clarifies the boundaries between civil disputes and criminal liability in cases involving alleged document manipulation.

Factual Background:

The dispute arose out of a land transaction that gradually escalated from a civil disagreement into criminal proceedings. The de facto complainant alleged that she had entered into an agreement with a seller for the purchase of a piece of land and had paid ₹1 lakh as advance consideration. However, she later discovered that the property had been sold to the present petitioners.

A civil dispute followed. During the pendency of that civil litigation, the petitioners allegedly approached the complainant for settlement and offered ₹3.5 lakh. According to the complainant, she accepted the amount and signed money receipts acknowledging the payment.

Subsequently, she alleged that the petitioners fraudulently inserted additional text above her signatures on the money receipts to falsely project that the payment was consideration for an entirely different land transaction. On discovering the alleged manipulation, she lodged an FIR accusing the petitioners of offences under Sections 420 (cheating), 468 (forgery for purpose of cheating), 471 (using forged document as genuine), and 34 IPC (common intention).

During investigation, the police seized two money receipts from the possession of one of the accused persons. The questioned document examiner submitted a report noting “fraudulent symptoms” in the alignment and positioning of the disputed texts. The expert opined that the additional writings appeared to have been inserted subsequently.

Relying on the seizure and forensic observations, the Magistrate rejected the accused persons’ plea for discharge, leading them to approach the High Court in revision.

Arguments on Behalf of the Petitioners:

The petitioners assailed the Magistrate’s order on multiple grounds. Their principal argument was that the dispute was purely civil in nature and had been given a criminal colour as a counterblast to earlier litigation.

They contended that the essential ingredients of cheating and forgery were absent. According to them, the complainant had voluntarily signed the money receipts, and the dispute related to the interpretation of terms rather than fabrication of documents.

The petitioners further questioned the manner in which the documents were seized. It was argued that the original documents were not properly taken into custody and that procedural irregularities undermined the reliability of the prosecution case.

They also challenged the evidentiary value of the document examiner’s report, asserting that expert opinion at this stage could not conclusively establish forgery. It was argued that the report was not decisive and should not form the sole basis for proceeding to trial.

One of the petitioners contended that no specific overt act had been attributed to him. The absence of distinct allegations against each accused, it was submitted, rendered the prosecution case vague and unsustainable.

Relying on judicial precedents governing discharge, the petitioners argued that where materials do not clearly disclose the ingredients of the alleged offences, the accused is entitled to discharge to prevent unnecessary trial and harassment.

Arguments on Behalf of the State and the Complainant:

Opposing the revision, the State and the de facto complainant submitted that the Magistrate had rightly found sufficient material to proceed to trial.

They emphasized that the money receipts were seized from the conscious possession of one of the accused persons, which itself constituted a significant incriminating circumstance.

The forensic report noting subsequent insertions and alignment discrepancies provided further support to the allegation that the documents had been tampered with after the complainant signed them.

It was argued that the stage of discharge does not require the court to determine whether the accused are guilty beyond reasonable doubt. The court must only examine whether the materials disclose a prima facie case giving rise to grave suspicion.

The prosecution maintained that the allegations of fraudulent insertion of additional text above the complainant’s signatures squarely attracted the ingredients of forgery and cheating. Whether such alterations were actually made and who was responsible were matters to be adjudicated at trial after full evidence.

Legal Principles Considered by the Court:

Justice Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee examined the statutory scheme relating to forgery under Sections 463 and 464 IPC, which define the making of a “false document.” The Court referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in Md. Ibrahim v. State of Bihar, which explains the circumstances in which a document can be said to be false and clarifies that fraudulent or dishonest intention is central to the offence.

The Court also relied on Sajjan Kumar v. CBI, where the Supreme Court delineated the scope of discharge proceedings. It reiterated that at the stage of framing charge or considering discharge, the court must determine whether the material on record, if unrebutted, would constitute the offence alleged. The court is not required to meticulously evaluate evidence or weigh its probative value.

The High Court underscored that a “grave suspicion” is sufficient to frame charge. A strong suspicion founded on materials collected during investigation justifies continuation of proceedings.

Court’s Analysis:

Applying these principles, the Court observed that the seizure of the money receipts from the possession of one accused was a material circumstance.

The allegation that additional writings were inserted above the complainant’s signatures, coupled with the forensic observations suggesting later additions, created a prima facie inference of tampering.

The Court held that whether the documents were actually altered, and whether the accused were responsible for such alteration, were questions that could only be determined after evidence was led at trial.

The Court rejected the argument that the dispute was purely civil. It observed that the mere existence of a civil dispute does not bar criminal proceedings if the allegations disclose ingredients of criminal offences.

As regards the expert’s report, the Court noted that at the discharge stage, the report could be considered as part of the prosecution material. The trial court, if necessary, could summon the expert under Section 311 CrPC even if not cited as a witness.

The Court emphasized that it could not undertake a detailed evaluation of the expert’s findings or assess their ultimate evidentiary value. That exercise belongs to the trial stage.

The contention regarding absence of specific role was also rejected. The Court held that when allegations suggest common intention and collective involvement, individual roles may be clarified during trial.

Finding no perversity or illegality in the Magistrate’s order, the High Court dismissed the revision petition while clarifying that its observations would not prejudice the merits of the trial.

Judgment:

The High Court upheld the Magistrate’s refusal to discharge the accused. It held that:

The materials on record disclosed a prima facie case.

Seizure of documents and forensic observations created grave suspicion.

The scope of discharge is limited and does not permit a mini-trial.

Questions of tampering and culpability must be tested at trial.

The revision petition was accordingly dismissed.