Under the esteemed chairmanship of the Hon’ble Judge, the Special Bench of the High Court heard and adjudicated upon Writ Petition No. 2025/HC/001. The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, asserting that the respondent had engaged in organized forgery and fraud under Sections 420, 467, 468, and 471 of the Indian Penal Code.The petitioner’s counsel argued that the respondent had tampered with property documents through fraudulent means, causing financial and mental distress to the petitioner. The submitted documents indicated that the respondent had created forged records to establish unauthorized ownership over the disputed property.The respondent’s counsel contended that the petitioner failed to provide conclusive evidence to establish that forged documents were used. Furthermore, they asserted that a civil suit concerning the ownership of the property was already pending before the appropriate court, rendering this petition non-maintainable.The court carefully examined the presented documents, legal precedents, and arguments from both sides. It was established that a prima facie case of forgery and fraud had been made out, necessitating an independent criminal investigation. The court referred to the Supreme Court’s ruling in A.B.C. v. State (2018 SCC 452), which held that if forged documents are used to derive unlawful benefits, the act constitutes a cognizable offense.Accordingly, the court issued the following directions:Since a prima facie offense has been established, the competent police authority is directed to conduct an expeditious investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.Forensic examination of the allegedly forged documents is mandated, and the records must be sent to the forensic laboratory for verification.To prevent harassment of the petitioner, the Superintendent of Police is instructed to ensure a fair investigation, protecting the petitioner from undue pressure or coercion.The relevant revenue officer is directed to conduct a thorough review of the property records and take appropriate action under the applicable legal provisions.The court is of the view that this case is not merely a civil dispute but involves serious criminal acts that warrant legal action. Compliance with the issued directions must be ensured, and a status report shall be submitted within three weeks.Ordered accordingly. Under the esteemed chairmanship of the Hon’ble Judge, the Special Bench of the High Court heard and adjudicated upon Writ Petition No. 2025/HC/001. The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, asserting that the respondent had engaged in organized forgery and fraud under Sections 420, 467, 468, and 471 of the Indian Penal Code.The petitioner’s counsel argued that the respondent had tampered with property documents through fraudulent means, causing financial and mental distress to the petitioner. The submitted documents indicated that the respondent had created forged records to establish unauthorized ownership over the disputed property.The respondent’s counsel contended that the petitioner failed to provide conclusive evidence to establish that forged documents were used. Furthermore, they asserted that a civil suit concerning the ownership of the property was already pending before the appropriate court, rendering this petition non-maintainable.The court carefully examined the presented documents, legal precedents, and arguments from both sides. It was established that a prima facie case of forgery and fraud had been made out, necessitating an independent criminal investigation. The court referred to the Supreme Court’s ruling in A.B.C. v. State (2018 SCC 452), which held that if forged documents are used to derive unlawful benefits, the act constitutes a cognizable offense.Accordingly, the court issued the following directions:Since a prima facie offense has been established, the competent police authority is directed to conduct an expeditious investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.Forensic examination of the allegedly forged documents is mandated, and the records must be sent to the forensic laboratory for verification.To prevent harassment of the petitioner, the Superintendent of Police is instructed to ensure a fair investigation, protecting the petitioner from undue pressure or coercion.The relevant revenue officer is directed to conduct a thorough review of the property records and take appropriate action under the applicable legal provisions.The court is of the view that this case is not merely a civil dispute but involves serious criminal acts that warrant legal action. Compliance with the issued directions must be ensured, and a status report shall be submitted within three weeks.Ordered accordingly. Submit