Forged document complaints can still trigger police investigation, but writ relief to compel FIR registration is ordinarily unavailable.

A complaint alleging fabrication of a ledger statement was treated as disclosing a cognizable offence, and the pendency of a civil dispute before the NCLT did not by itself justify refusal to register an FIR. The analysis notes that Section 195 CrPC bars cognizance by a court, not police investigation into a cognizable offence, even where the disputed document was used in proceedings. At the same time, writ jurisdiction under Article 226 should ordinarily not be used to compel FIR registration when statutory remedies under Sections 154(3), 156(3) and 200 CrPC are available. The complainant was therefore relegated to the Magistrate-based remedies.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the police authorities were justified in not registering an FIR on the complaint alleging forgery merely because a civil dispute was pending before the NCLT; (ii) Whether the High Court, in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, could direct registration of an FIR on such complaint.

Issue (i): Whether the police authorities were justified in not registering an FIR on the complaint alleging forgery merely because a civil dispute was pending before the NCLT.

Analysis: The complaint alleged fabrication of a ledger statement and therefore disclosed a cognizable offence. The scope of Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was examined and it was held that the bar operates at the stage of cognizance by a court and does not curtail the police power to investigate a cognizable offence under Chapter XII of the Code. The reasoning in the authorities relied upon shows that a forged document, if used in a proceeding, does not prevent the aggrieved person from approaching the police or the Magistrate for investigation. The notice issued by the police, resting only on the pendency of the civil proceeding before the NCLT, was therefore inconsistent with the settled law.

Conclusion: The police authorities ought to have registered the FIR and investigated the complaint.

Issue (ii): Whether the High Court, in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, could direct registration of an FIR on such complaint.

Analysis: The Court applied the principle that where a grievance is non-registration of FIR or inadequate investigation, the aggrieved person should ordinarily pursue the statutory alternative remedies under Section 154(3), Section 156(3), and Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, rather than invoke writ jurisdiction. The decisions relied upon reiterate that the High Court should not ordinarily direct registration of FIR when such alternate remedies are available, particularly where the Supreme Court has cautioned against entertaining such writ petitions.

Conclusion: The High Court could not grant a writ direction compelling registration of FIR.

Final Conclusion: The complaint disclosed a cognizable offence, but the petitioner was relegated to the remedies available before the competent Magistrate, and the writ relief sought for compulsory registration of FIR was not granted.

Ratio Decidendi: Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 does not bar police investigation into a cognizable offence merely because the disputed document has been used in court proceedings, but writ jurisdiction should ordinarily not be invoked to compel FIR registration when efficacious statutory remedies are available.

---