The commonest fate of a forgery complaint rooted in a property dispute is dismissal with the label "purely civil." In A. Chidambaram v. State (Crl.R.C. No. 919 of 2026, 2026:MHC:4155, decided 9 October 2026), the Madras High Court set aside exactly such an order. The Magistrate had rejected a petition under Section 175(3) of the BNSS — the successor to Section 156(3) CrPC — reasoning that a dispute over rival title documents belonged to the civil court. The High Court held that the Magistrate had conducted a premature mini-trial: the true test is not whether civil proceedings exist, but whether the ingredients of penal offences are prima facie made out. The matter was remanded with a direction to order registration of an FIR and a proper investigation.
The complaint
The petitioner purchased about 2.98 acres at Paiyanoor village, Chengalpattu, through two sale deeds of 2005; revenue records were mutated and patta issued in his name in 2006. He alleged that two private respondents created a settlement deed and a release deed, both dated December 2014, over overlapping survey numbers. His police complaint of November 2024 produced no FIR, so he petitioned the Judicial Magistrate under Section 175(3) BNSS. The Magistrate dismissed the petition in November 2025, holding the dispute civil in character. The respondents defended that order by tracing their title to a 1949 sale deed and pointing to the petitioner’s nineteen-year silence.
The High Court’s reasoning
The provisions in play
| BNSS / BNS provision | Subject | CrPC / IPC equivalent |
|---|---|---|
| Section 175(3) BNSS | Magistrate’s power to order investigation | Section 156(3) CrPC |
| Section 173(4) BNSS | Recourse to senior police officer on refusal to register FIR | Section 154(3) CrPC |
| Sections 336, 338, 340(2) BNS | Forgery; forgery of valuable security; using forged document as genuine | Sections 465, 467, 471 IPC |
| Section 61(2) BNS | Criminal conspiracy | Section 120B IPC |
The judgment also restates a point that property litigators deploy constantly: registration of documents does not confer title. A registered instrument enjoys no immunity from the allegation that it was fabricated; if anything, the registration trail — the executants, the witnesses, the timing — is where a forgery investigation begins.
Why this matters for complainants in Delhi too
The two-step discipline is identical everywhere the BNSS applies, including Delhi: first the police station under Section 173, then the Superintendent of Police under Section 173(4), and only then the Magistrate under Section 175(3) with a supporting affidavit. What this decision adds is insulation at the third step. A Magistrate faced with a document-forgery complaint arising out of a property tangle cannot shrug it off as civil; the enquiry is limited to whether cognizable offences are disclosed on the complaint’s own terms. Everything else — the rival title chain, the explanation for delay, the genuineness of signatures — belongs to the investigation and, if a chargesheet follows, the trial.
Build the paper trail before the petition. Annex the police complaint, the acknowledgment, the representation to the senior officer and the affidavit — defects at these steps are the commonest reason Section 175(3) petitions fail on maintainability.
Plead ingredients, not grievances. A complaint that maps specific acts to the elements of forgery and cheating survives the “purely civil” objection; a narrative of injustice does not.
Expect the counter-attack. Accused parties will move to quash any FIR so registered; a complaint drafted with dates, documents and specific roles is the best insurance at that stage as well.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is Section 175(3) BNSS and how does it differ from Section 156(3) CrPC?
Section 175(3) BNSS empowers a Magistrate, on an application supported by affidavit after the complainant has first approached the police under Section 173(4), to order investigation of a cognizable offence. It is the successor to Section 156(3) CrPC with added procedural safeguards — the prior recourse to the Superintendent of Police and the supporting affidavit. The Court held the power is wide enough to include directing FIR registration and all incidental steps needed for a proper investigation.
Can a Magistrate refuse an FIR because a civil dispute exists over the same property?
Not on that ground alone. Civil and criminal proceedings can run in parallel. The question at the Section 175(3) stage is confined to whether the complaint, read as a whole, discloses the commission of cognizable offences — here forgery and use of forged documents. Weighing defences, rival titles and delay at that threshold amounts to a mini-trial, which this judgment forbids.
Does registration of a document prove the title it claims?
No. The Court reiterated that registration of documents does not confer title and cannot cure an instrument tainted by fraud. A registered settlement or release deed can still be a forged or fraudulent instrument, and whether it is so is precisely what an investigation is for.
What did the High Court actually order?
It set aside the Magistrate's dismissal and remanded the matter with a direction to order the jurisdictional police (District Crime Branch) to register an FIR, investigate properly and report in accordance with law, within eight weeks of receipt of the order. The revision was allowed with no order as to costs.