Prima facie forgery complaint can sustain summons without detailed role attribution at the quashing stage.

A complaint alleging that all accused jointly forged and produced a certificate in court can sustain process at the quashing stage if it discloses a prima facie offence. The Court held that detailed attribution of each accused's individual role in the making of the document was not required at that threshold, and the truth of the allegation could not be finally tested then. The order quashing the proceedings was set aside and the summons order was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court was justified in quashing the criminal proceedings and summons on the ground that the complaint did not plead the specific role of each accused in the alleged forgery, and whether the complaint disclosed a prima facie case under the penal provisions invoked.

Analysis: The complaint alleged that all the accused had together forged and produced a certificate in court. At the stage of considering quashing, the Court found that such an allegation was sufficient to sustain the summons order and that it was not necessary for the complainant to set out in full detail the individual role of each accused in the making or manufacture of the document. The Court also noted that the correctness of the allegation could not be finally determined at that stage.

Conclusion: The order quashing the proceedings against the concerned accused was set aside and the Magistrate's order issuing summons was upheld.

Final Conclusion: A complaint alleging collective participation in forgery can sustain summons and cannot be quashed merely for want of detailed role attribution at the threshold stage.

Ratio Decidendi: At the stage of quashing, a complaint alleging joint commission of forgery need not contain elaborate particulars of each accused's role if it otherwise discloses a prima facie offence.

---