![High Court Cannot Quash Forgery FIR While Handwriting Expert Report Is Awaited: Supreme Court in Sharla Bazliel v. Baldev Thakur [2026 INSC 252]](/assets/images/article-criminal.svg)
Quick Answer: Where an FIR alleges forgery and the police have sent the disputed documents to a handwriting expert, a High Court cannot quash the FIR without waiting for the expert's report. The Supreme Court set aside a Himachal Pradesh High Court order that had quashed an FIR alleging forged bank nominations and undervalued land sales, noting that the forensic reports later found the signatures forged, and directed the investigation and trial to proceed.
In Sharla Bazliel v. Baldev Thakur & Ors. (2026 INSC 252), the Supreme Court held that the High Court quashed the FIR under Section 482 CrPC at the very threshold, while investigation was in full swing and the questioned signatures were still being examined by the State Forensic Science Laboratory, and that its reliance on Mir Nagvi Askari v. CBI was misplaced (paras 14, 16–17, 20, 22). A Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta found the allegations and material collected amply sufficient to proceed against the accused, set aside the High Court's order dated 08.01.2024 and directed the investigation to be concluded (paras 23–25).
Status: High Court of Himachal Pradesh judgment and final order dated 08.01.2024 in Cr. MMO No. 50 of 2023 set aside; FIR No. 8 of 2022 of Police Station State CID, Shimla revived; appeals of the complainant and the State allowed (paras 3, 24, 27).
Headnote: Quashing a Forgery FIR Before the Expert Report
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Sections 173(2) and 482 – Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Section 193(3) – Constitution of India – Article 226 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B – Quashing of FIR – Forgery – Handwriting expert report awaited – Forged bank nomination – Undervaluation of land in sale deeds – Premature quashing during investigation.
Held: (i) The High Court interfered under its inherent powers and quashed the FIR at the very threshold, when investigation was in full swing and vital material was yet to be collected (para 14).
(ii) Where the FIR alleges forgery and the investigating agency has sent the disputed documents to a handwriting expert, quashing the FIR without awaiting the expert's report is totally unjustified (paras 16–17).
(iii) Since proof of forgery depended on the outcome of the expert's comparison, it was premature to record any finding on falsification of documents and forgery, and the prosecution could not be stifled under Section 482 CrPC or Article 226 (paras 20, 22).
(iv) Mir Nagvi Askari v. CBI, relied on by the High Court, was neither relevant nor applicable to the facts (paras 19–20, 22).
(v) The complainant's earlier FIR against her father concerned an entirely different allegation and was no ground to quash this FIR (para 18).
(vi) The allegation that deposits in the parents' bank accounts were usurped by the accused posing as nominees prima facie constitutes fraud and criminal misappropriation, and the material collected is amply sufficient to proceed (para 23).
(paras 14–25)
Case Details: Sharla Bazliel v. Baldev Thakur (2026 INSC 252)
Final Outcome: Appeals allowed; High Court's order quashing the FIR set aside; Investigating Officer to conclude investigation and file the result at the earliest; if the final report is already filed, trial court to proceed as per law; observations limited to these appeals.
Case: Sharla Bazliel v. Baldev Thakur and Others, with the State of Himachal Pradesh's connected appeal
Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 252
Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. ___ of 2026 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 3533 of 2024), with Criminal Appeal No. ___ of 2026 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 2498 of 2025)
Court: Supreme Court of India (Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) – Reportable
Date of Decision: 17 March 2026
Bench: Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta (author)
Relevant Acts & Sections: Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Sections 173(2) and 482; Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Section 193(3); Constitution of India – Article 226
Impugned Order: Judgment and final order dated 08.01.2024 of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla in Cr. MMO No. 50 of 2023, quashing FIR No. 8 of 2022 (para 3)
Source: Supreme Court of India (official website)
Key Holdings of the Supreme Court
- The High Court quashed the FIR prematurely, at the threshold, while investigation was in full swing (paras 14, 18).
- An FIR alleging forgery should not be quashed while the disputed documents are with a handwriting expert and the report is awaited (paras 16–17).
- The High Court took note that the documents had been sent to the SFSL but glossed over this vital aspect (para 17).
- Mir Nagvi Askari v. CBI did not apply, as proof of forgery depended on the expert's comparison still pending (paras 20, 22).
- The SFSL report later found that the signatures on the questioned documents were facsimile stamps, not the father's handwritten signatures (paras 11, 21).
- The allegations and material collected were amply sufficient to proceed; it was not a case for inherent powers (para 23).
Brief Facts of the Case
The appellant-complainant, the adopted daughter and legal heir of her father, alleged that the three accused conspired to grab her father's property and articles. She alleged that, after her mother's death in 2013, respondent No. 2 introduced her father to respondent No. 3, and the accused, exploiting his weak mental and physical condition, isolated him and had respondent No. 2 made nominee in his bank accounts (paras 4–5).
She alleged that Rs. 1.18 crores, including about Rs. 65 lakhs of her late mother's savings, was transferred from her father's UCO Bank account to respondent No. 2 without any lawful transaction, and that 49 bighas and 17 biswas of family land were sold to respondent No. 1 by Sale Deed No. 366/2017 for Rs. 3.90 crores, shown as self-acquired property, at a throwaway price and with a false recital of NOCs from the family (paras 6–7).
After her father's death at a hotel owned by respondent No. 1, respondent No. 2, claiming to be the nominee, closed his savings account and took Rs. 5,74,526; no sale consideration for the 2017 and 2019 sale deeds was found credited to the father's accounts (para 8). FIR No. 8 of 2022 dated 26.08.2022 was registered at Police Station State CID, Shimla (para 9).
During the quashing proceedings, the Investigating Officer's status report dated 03.07.2023 flagged sale rates far below circle rates, and the questioned documents were sent to the SFSL, Junga, on 27.02.2023 (para 10). The High Court nonetheless quashed the FIR on 08.01.2024. The SFSL reports later found the nomination and account-closure documents bore forged signatures, and the investigation found a loss of Rs. 35,87,242 in stamp duty (para 11).
Issues Before the Supreme Court
- Whether the High Court was justified in quashing the FIR under Section 482 CrPC while investigation was in progress and the handwriting expert's report was awaited (paras 14–17).
- Whether the High Court's reliance on Mir Nagvi Askari v. CBI was justified (paras 19–22).
- Whether the allegations and material collected were sufficient to proceed against the accused (para 23).
Court's Findings and Reasoning
Quashing at the threshold (paras 14–15): The High Court held that fraud, misrepresentation or forgery were not made out and that the FIR rested on speculation. The Supreme Court found that it had interfered when investigation was in full swing and vital material was yet to be collected.
Expert report awaited (paras 16–17): Once the Court knew that the genuineness of the signatures was being examined by the SFSL, there was no reason whatsoever to quash the FIR under Section 482 CrPC; the Single Judge noted the reference but glossed over it.
Earlier FIR against the father (para 18): The High Court's reference to the complainant having earlier filed an FIR against her father was misplaced, as that FIR concerned a different allegation of fabricating the grandfather's signatures.
Mir Nagvi Askari distinguished (paras 19–20, 22): The High Court relied on that decision to say that the prosecution must prove the accused created a false document. But with the documents already sent for examination, proof of forgery depended on the expert's comparison, and it was premature to record findings on forgery.
Subsequent SFSL findings (paras 11, 21): As averred in the State's appeal, the SFSL report concluded that the signatures on the questioned documents were facsimile stamps and not the father's handwritten signatures, so the investigation had produced credible evidence of forgery.
Sufficient material to proceed (para 23): The allegation that the parents' deposits were usurped by the accused posing as nominees prima facie constituted fraud and criminal misappropriation; the case did not warrant the exercise of inherent powers.
Final Outcome and Directions
- Judgment and final order dated 08.01.2024 of the High Court in Cr. MMO No. 50 of 2023 set aside (para 24).
- Investigating Officer to conclude the investigation and file its result before the court concerned at the earliest, if not already filed (para 25).
- If the report under Section 173(2) CrPC (Section 193(3) BNSS) has already been filed, the trial court shall proceed as per law (para 25).
- Observations confined to these appeals, with no bearing on the rights and defences of the parties at the appropriate stage (para 26).
- Appeals allowed; pending applications disposed of (paras 27–28).
Legal Principle Laid Down
Where an FIR sets out allegations of forgery and the investigating agency has sent the disputed documents for examination by a handwriting expert, the High Court should not quash the FIR under Section 482 CrPC or Article 226 without awaiting the expert's report, because proof of forgery depends on that comparison and any finding on falsification of documents at that stage is premature (paras 16–17, 20, 22).
Precedents Relied Upon
- Mir Nagvi Askari v. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2009) 15 SCC 643 – Distinguished – relied on by the High Court for the requirement of proof that the accused created a false document; held neither relevant nor applicable while the expert report was awaited. Discussed at paras 19–20, 22.
Important Paragraphs of the Judgment
Verbatim extracts from the judgment. For the full text, refer to the judgment PDF below.
Para 14: "On a perusal of the impugned order, we find that the High Court interfered in exercise of its inherent powers and quashed the FIR at the very threshold when investigation was in full swing and vital material was yet to be collected."
Para 16: "We may observe that where allegations of forgery are set out in the FIR and Investigating Agency has undertaken the exercise of getting the disputed documents examined through the handwriting expert, an order quashing the FIR without awaiting the outcome of the handwriting expert’s report would be totally unjustified."
Para 17: "Once the Court was apprised that investigation into the genuineness of the signatures on the disputed/questioned documents was being undertaken and the signatures were in the process of being analysed by the SFSL, there was no reason whatsoever for the High Court to have proceeded to quash the FIR by exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC."
Para 20: "The questioned documents having already been forwarded for examination, the proof of forgery would evidently depend upon the outcome of the comparison to be conducted by the handwriting expert."
Para 22: "In such circumstances, the prosecution of the accused persons could not have been stifled at the threshold by the exercise of powers under Sections 482 CrPC or Article 226 of the Constitution of India."
Para 23: "Hence, we are of the firm opinion that the allegations as set out in the FIR and the material collected by the Investigating Officer is amply sufficient to proceed against the accused, and it was not a case warranting the exercise of inherent powers of the High Court to quash the FIR."
Practical Impact of the Ruling
- For complainants: A forgery FIR cannot be ended at the threshold while the questioned documents are with the forensic laboratory (paras 16–17).
- For accused persons: A quashing petition filed while expert examination is pending is unlikely to succeed; defences remain open at the appropriate stage (paras 22, 26).
- For High Courts: Courts exercising Section 482 CrPC or Article 226 powers should not record findings on forgery before the handwriting expert's report is available (paras 20, 22).
- For investigating agencies: Forensic reports obtained during the investigation can be placed before the Supreme Court and are to be taken to their logical end through the final report (paras 11, 21, 25).
FAQs on Quashing a Forgery FIR Before the Expert Report
1. What did the Supreme Court decide in Sharla Bazliel v. Baldev Thakur?
It set aside the Himachal Pradesh High Court's order quashing the forgery and cheating FIR against the three accused and directed the investigation and trial to proceed (paras 24–25).
2. Can a High Court quash a forgery FIR while the handwriting expert's report is pending?
No. The Court held that quashing the FIR without awaiting the outcome of the expert's report would be totally unjustified (para 16).
3. Why was Mir Nagvi Askari v. CBI not applied?
Because proof of forgery depended on the pending expert comparison, the decision was neither relevant nor applicable and findings on forgery were premature (paras 20, 22).
4. What did the forensic reports find?
The SFSL found that the nomination and account-closure documents bore forged signatures, and that the signatures on the questioned documents were facsimile stamps, not the father's handwritten signatures (paras 11, 21).
5. What happens next in the case?
The Investigating Officer must conclude the investigation at the earliest; if the final report is already filed, the trial court will proceed as per law (para 25).
Keywords: 2026 INSC 252, Sharla Bazliel v. Baldev Thakur, quashing of FIR, Section 482 CrPC, forgery, handwriting expert report, SFSL report, Section 467 IPC, Section 468 IPC, Section 471 IPC, Section 420 IPC, Section 120-B IPC, Mir Nagvi Askari v. CBI, forged bank nomination, circle rate undervaluation, Justice Sandeep Mehta, Justice Vikram Nath, Supreme Court judgment
Related on LegalTaxGuru
Download Judgment PDF – Sharla Bazliel v. Baldev Thakur
Source: Supreme Court of India (official website).