Civil Court Can Direct Forwarding of Forgery Complaint U/S 151 CPC

Madhya Pradesh High Court 

Why in News? 

A Bench of Justice Gajendra Singh, in Himmat Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2026), held that a Civil Court possesses inherent power under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) to direct a party or witness to forward a complaint to the police for registration of an FIR, in cases involving serious allegations of forgery. 

What was the Background of Himmat Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2026) Case? 

• The dispute arose from a family matter concerning agricultural land, with the Petitioners and Respondents being siblings. 
• Respondents 2 and 3 (sisters) filed a civil suit before the Second Civil Judge, Senior Division, Dharampuri, seeking a declaration of title. 
• During the proceedings, the brothers (Petitioners 1 and 2) relied on a will purportedly executed by their father in favour of Petitioner 2, said to have been made in the presence of Petitioners 3 and 4. 
• In its judgment dated July 28, the Civil Judge found that the will had been forged after institution of the civil suit and directed registration of an FIR against the Petitioners and other involved persons. 
• An FIR was accordingly registered at Dharampuri Police Station under Sections 61 (criminal conspiracy), 336 (forgery for cheating), 338 (forgery of a valuable security or will), and 340 (using a forged document as genuine) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS). 
• The Petitioners approached the High Court seeking quashing of the FIR. 

What were the Court's Observations? 

On the Inherent Power of a Civil Court to Direct Registration of an FIR: 

•  The Court held that although the CPC contains no express provision empowering a Civil Court to direct a party or witness to lodge a police complaint, there is equally no express or implied bar against such a direction, and this power can be traced to the court's inherent jurisdiction under Section 151 CPC. 

On the Rationale for Recognising Such Power: 

•  The Court observed that accused persons in forgery cases often approach the High Court to quash the FIR on the ground that the dispute is essentially civil, sometimes allowing offenders to escape "the clutches of law."  
• It attributed this to the reluctance of Civil Courts to direct registration of forgery cases or to initiate proceedings under Section 379 of the BNSS (corresponding to Section 340 CrPC) and clarified that recognising this power would send an appropriate deterrent message to wrongdoers. 

On Reliance on Manohar Lal Chopra v. Rai Bahadur Rao Raja Seth Hiralal (1962): 

• The Court relied on the Constitution Bench decision affirming that the inherent jurisdiction of a court to make an order ex debito justitiae under Section 151 CPC is undoubted, though that jurisdiction cannot be exercised so as to nullify the Code's provisions.  
• Since the Code itself recognises the existence of inherent power, there was no question of implying restrictions beyond its limits, and the "ends of justice" contemplated under Section 151 would be defeated if such power could not be exercised to unearth forgery. 

On Whether Forgery of a Court Document Necessarily Attracts Section 340 CrPC/379 BNSS Procedure: 

• Referring to the Supreme Court's decision in Sachinda Nand Singh v. State of Bihar (1998), the Court reiterated that the bar under Section 195(1)(b)(ii) CrPC — which requires a written complaint by the concerned court before cognizance can be taken of forgery offences affecting the administration of justice — does not apply where the forgery was committed before the document was produced or given in evidence in court. 

On the Forgery Having Been Committed Outside the Court's Precincts: 

• The Court held that Chapter 26 provisions apply to offences affecting the administration of justice while a document is part of the court's records, and that an act of forgery committed well before filing, outside the court's precincts, does not gain protection merely because the document later entered the court record. 
• Since the will was forged outside court and prior to its production in evidence, no preliminary enquiry under Section 340(1) CrPC was required, and there was no impediment to the police registering the case. 
• Accordingly, the Court refused to quash the FIR and dismissed the petition. 

What is Section 151 of CPC? 

About: 

• Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 deals with the inherent powers of the Court. 
• It entails the provision regarding the power of the court to overcome difficulties arising out of procedural rules. 
• This power is to be exercised by the court when no explicit provision is provided under the Code. 

The Provision: 

Section 151 CPC states the saving of inherent powers of Court: 

"Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or otherwise affect the inherent power of the Court to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of the Court." 

Applicability of Section 151 CPC: 

• The court must use its inherent power to provide equity, justice and good conscience. 
• When no alternate remedy is available, the court may invoke the power inherent under Section 151 CPC. 
• The section does not confer any substantive right upon the parties but merely aids in overcoming procedural disparities that arise during the course of justice. 

Nature of Inherent Powers: 

• Inherent powers under Section 151 are residuary in character — they are neither conferred nor curtailed by the Code itself, but inhere in the court by virtue of its very existence as a court of justice. 
• These powers are supplementary to the specific provisions of the Code and cannot be used to override or circumvent any express statutory provision. 
• They operate exclusively in the gaps and interstices of the Code, addressing situations that the framers did not specifically contemplate.