Brothers Considered Next To Father, Obliged To Protect Sisters' Rights: Gujarat HC Refuses To Quash Forgery Charge In Relation To Ancestral Property

The Gujarat High Court recently declined to quash an FIR lodged against an 81-year-old man accused by his elderly sister of forging her signature to gain control of their ancestral property dating back to 1975.

Justice D A Joshi underscored the significant cultural role of brothers in India, stating, “I am aware about the civil proceedings going on between the parties as also the fact that the applicant is a senior citizen now aged about 81 years. But what refrains me from exercising the inherent powers is the fact that a helpless daughter, after the death of his father, has been fighting for her legitimate rights over her ancestral property alleged to have been deprived by his own brother by creating some forged and fabricated documents.”

“In our country, the only person who can take the place of a father after his death is the brother whether younger or elder. In our culture, brothers are being considered as next to father and, therefore, they should keep the tendency of giving to the sisters, if nothing, then at least her legitimate rights,” Justice Joshi emphasized.

The above ruling came in an application filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973, whereby the applicant sought to invoke the inherent powers of the Court praying for quashing of the first information report which was now registered for the offence punishable under sections 465, 467, 471, 406, 420 and 114 of the IPC.

The case centred around a dispute over ancestral property between the complainant and the applicant, who are siblings. The complainant alleged that the applicant forged the signatures of their siblings before revenue authorities, falsely claiming they had relinquished their rights before 1975. This purportedly allowed the applicant to become the sole owner on record and sell the property to a third party in November 2013.

Upon receiving a government notice about their names being removed from records, the sister swiftly obtained the documents and had them analyzed by a handwriting expert. The expert determined that the signatures had been forged, prompting her to file a complaint against her brother for forgery and other offenses.

The accused brother contested the criminal case in the High Court in 2015, but the court, after reviewing the case's details, has now declined to dismiss the FIR.

The Court's order emphasised the independence of civil and criminal proceedings, stating, “mere pendency of the civil proceedings does not have any bearing to the criminal proceedings as both are totally distinct and different form of proceedings to be tried in altogether a different court and, therefore, both the proceedings can go on simultaneously irrespective of whatever outcome may be. Thus, considering the allegations levelled in the complaint as well as the facts gathered from the record, I am of the considered opinion that the investigation should go on so that the true and correct facts can be brought on record.”

Addressing the defense's argument regarding a 40-year delay in filing the complaint, the Court noted that the complaint itself provided a reasonable explanation for the delay.

“it has been submitted by the respondent that she came to know about such fraud in the year 2013, and immediately having come to know about the same, first she obtained all the disputed documents from the revenue authority and then sent it to the FSL for getting the expert's opinion and, thereafter, approached the concerned police station to register the complaint. However, as the police did not pay any heed to the request of the complainant, she filed the impugned complaint before the Magistrate. Therefore, it can be said that it was a procedural delay and not an intentional one,” the Court stated.

The Court cited the Supreme Court's ruling in State of H.P. Vs. Gian Chand (2001) 6 SCC 71, which held that the prosecution story should not be disbelieved solely due to delay.

Consequently, the Court dismissed the application on the above grounds.

Case Title: Kantilal Maganlal Shah & Anr. Versus State Of Gujarat & Anr.

LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Guj) 91

Click Here To Read Judgement