06 August 2024 Criminal Appeals & Suspension of Sentence >> Criminal Law   |   Forgery >> Criminal Law  

The dispute began when the appellant, a subcontractor, alleged that he had not been paid by the main contractor (Santosh Kumar Choudha, respondent 2). The primary allegation was that the respondent firm fraudulently submitted forged documents to claim prior experience in construction, which was required to secure the tender. After the appellant filed a complaint, an FIR was registered, and investigations were initiated.

Initially, two final reports were submitted by the investigation agency, both of which claimed insufficient evidence. However, the Magistrate disagreed, citing clear signs of document forgery and ordered summoning of the accused. The respondents challenged this order before the High Court, which quashed the proceedings, focusing on the alleged involvement of the appellant in fabricating the documents.

The Supreme Court ruled that the High Court had overstepped its jurisdiction by delving into factual matters, which should only be addressed during the trial. The Court emphasized that at the stage of summoning, the trial court should only assess whether a prima facie case exists, not evaluate evidence in detail. The Court also noted that being complicit in forgery is a disputed fact that can only be properly adjudicated during trial. Consequently, the Supreme Court reversed the High Court’s decision and directed that the case proceed to trial.