Antonetto J D’Souza v. Aldila Braganza & Ors.

2026 INSC 1032 · Criminal Appeal No. 4092 of 2026 · Decided 22 September 2026

Bench: Ujjal Bhuyan and Atul S. Chandurkar, JJ. (Judgment by Atul S. Chandurkar, J.)
Impugned order: High Court of Bombay at Goa, Criminal Writ Petition No. 346 of 2024, dated 28.08.2024 (Single Judge), discharging the accused
Statutes: Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss. 420, 468, 471, 34; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Ss. 173, 227, 397, 482
Counsel: Ms. Vrinda Grover for the appellant-informant; Respondent No. 1 (accused) in person
Result: Appeal allowed. Discharge set aside; trial restored and expedited

Catchwords

Criminal Procedure — Discharge — Forgery (Ss. 468, 471 IPC) — Original document alleged to be forged not recovered or produced with the chargesheet — Whether by itself fatal to framing of charge — Held, no. — Successive petition under S. 482 CrPC on the very ground rejected in an earlier round — Earlier order of Division Bench binding — Issue estoppel — Scope of inquiry at the stage of charge — Court cannot sift evidence; grave suspicion sufficient.

Short Note

The absence of the original document alleged to have been forged is not, by itself, fatal to a prosecution for forgery. The prosecution may still attempt to prove the offence through other, including circumstantial, evidence, though such evidence must exclude all reasonable doubt, a question to be decided at trial. An accused whose challenge to the framing of charge on that very ground has been rejected by the High Court in an earlier round cannot re-agitate it through a fresh petition under S. 482 CrPC without challenging the earlier order; such re-agitation is barred by issue estoppel.

Headnote

Earlier order binding; fresh challenge on the same ground impermissible. The accused’s earlier writ petition under S. 482 CrPC, whose principal ground was the absence of the original plan, was dismissed by a Division Bench on 31.10.2023 and attained finality. That order was binding on the accused. A fresh writ petition re-agitating the same challenge to the order framing charge, without challenging the earlier order and without liberty, could not have been entertained. The Single Judge failed to consider the earlier adjudication. [Paras 12–14]
Issue estoppel. A ground raised and rejected in an earlier round cannot be re-agitated before the same Court by the same party in the same proceedings. The impugned order was unsustainable on this count too. Piara Singh v. State of Punjab, 1969 INSC 3, relied on. [Para 15]
Missing original is not fatal by itself. Absence of the original document alleged to be forged does not, by itself, “sound the death knell” of the prosecution. The prosecution may attempt to prove forgery on other evidence, which must exclude all reasonable doubt; whether the charge is proved is to be decided at the trial after evaluating the entire material. Rama Shanker Lal v. State of U.P., (1971) 3 SCC 905, followed. Additional documents gathered during investigation may also be produced after the chargesheet with the Court’s permission. CBI v. R.S. Pai, 2002 INSC 178, referred to. Proceedings cannot be quashed without affording the prosecution an opportunity to prove the charge. [Paras 16–19]
Limited scope at the stage of charge. While deciding discharge or framing of charge, the Court cannot sift the evidence in the chargesheet to see whether it would result in conviction; grave suspicion against the accused is sufficient to proceed to trial. The Single Judge erred in undertaking a detailed re-appreciation of the material. K.H. Kamaladini v. State, 2025 INSC 745, and Ram Prakash Chadha v. State of U.P., 2024 INSC 522, referred to. [Paras 20–21]

Facts in Brief

2012The informant alleged that his neighbours, the accused and her father-in-law, relied on an interpolated, forged copy of an approved building plan to justify an allegedly illegal structure, and submitted it as genuine before the Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority. FIR No. 152/2012 registered at Calangute Police Station on 18.07.2012 under Ss. 468, 471, 420 r/w 34 IPC.
2013Anticipatory bail granted by the Sessions Court; police had sought custodial interrogation to recover the original and the forged plan.
02.04.2016Final report filed. The original plan was never recovered.
21.12.2017Magistrate (JMFC, Mapusa) found prima facie material, including the statement of the engineer who drew the plan, and directed framing of charge.
28.12.2021Sessions Court dismissed the revision (Criminal Revision Application No. 11 of 2018).
31.10.2023High Court Division Bench dismissed Criminal Writ Petition No. 80 of 2023 (originally No. 458 of 2020) challenging the FIR and chargesheet for want of the original plan. Not challenged further. Proceedings abated against the father-in-law on his death.
28.08.2024On a second petition (Criminal Writ Petition No. 346 of 2024) on the same ground, a Single Judge set aside the orders below and discharged the accused.

Contentions

Appellant (informant)

The High Court exceeded its S. 482 jurisdiction. At the stage of charge, no roving inquiry into the genuineness of documents is permissible. Whether the plan was forged is a matter for trial. The earlier Division Bench order was ignored.

Respondent No. 1 (accused, in person)

Without the original plan on record, a charge of forgery could never be framed. Fourteen years had passed without its recovery. Facing trial would be an abuse of process. The Sessions Court order had not been in issue in the earlier round.

Order

The judgment dated 28.08.2024 in Criminal Writ Petition No. 346 of 2024 is set aside. The proceedings in Criminal Case No. 90/S/2016/F before the learned Magistrate are restored, and the trial is to proceed in accordance with law. As the complaint is of 2012, the proceedings are expedited. All contentions of the parties, including the accused, are kept open for the trial, and no observation in the judgment is to prejudice either party. [Para 21]

Cases Referred

Piara Singh v. State of Punjab, 1969 INSC 3 (issue estoppel)
Rama Shanker Lal v. State of U.P., (1971) 3 SCC 905 (forgery without the original document)
Central Bureau of Investigation v. R.S. Pai, 2002 INSC 178 (additional documents after chargesheet)
K.H. Kamaladini v. State, 2025 INSC 745 (scope at framing of charge)
Ram Prakash Chadha v. State of U.P., 2024 INSC 522 (prima facie case under S. 227 CrPC)

Prepared by LAW LIBRARY. Online. This summary is for quick reference only. It is not a substitute for the full text of the judgment, which should be read before relying on it.