‘Every false affidavit is not a forged affidavit’: Rajasthan High Court quashes FIR in inheritance dispute

Jodhpur: The Rajasthan High Court has quashed an FIR for cheating and forgery registered against three siblings who obtained release of money lying in their deceased mother’s bank accounts on the strength of an affidavit declaring themselves to be her only legal heirs, holding that an incorrect declaration of heirship, even if disputed, cannot be equated with the making of a false document.

Justice Farjand Ali observed that there exists a clear and fundamental distinction between making a false claim and making a false document, since the Penal Code punishes not the mere assertion of a claim but the dishonest creation or use of a document answering the statutory definition of forgery.

“It deserves emphasis that a claim of legal heirship, even if ultimately found to be erroneous or legally unsustainable, does not ipso facto metamorphose into forgery. Every incorrect statement does not constitute a false document; every disputed assertion does not amount to fabrication; and every civil wrong cannot be elevated to the status of a criminal offence,” the Court observed.

The petitioners had invoked the inherent jurisdiction of the Court under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of FIR No. 80/2022 dated Jul 18, 2022, registered at Police Station Transport Nagar, District Pali for offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 406 IPC, along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom.

The FIR traced its origin to a complaint filed by respondent Pooja Dave before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pali, on which an order under Section 156(3) CrPC was passed. She alleged that after the demise of the parties’ father on May 7, 2021 and their mother on Jan 17, 2022, disputes arose amongst the siblings over succession to the estate, and that the petitioners, with a view to deprive her of her share in the inheritance, submitted an affidavit before the concerned bank representing themselves to be the only legal heirs of the deceased account holder and thereby obtained release of the amounts lying in the bank accounts of the late mother.

During investigation, the police collected the banking records, examined witnesses and scrutinised the affidavit furnished before the bank, but discovered no material demonstrating that the affidavit or any other document produced by the petitioners was forged, fabricated, altered or executed by impersonation. The investigating agency consequently deleted Sections 467, 468 and 471 IPC from the case, leaving the prosecution resting solely on an allegedly incorrect assertion of heirship in the affidavit.

Examining whether the allegations satisfied the statutory ingredients of the offences alleged, the Court noted that the affidavit was admittedly executed by the petitioners themselves — they did not sign in the name of the complainant, did not impersonate the deceased account holder, and did not claim authority they lacked. A document becomes “false” in the eye of criminal law, it said, only when it is brought into existence by impersonation, unauthorised execution on behalf of another, material alteration of an existing document or procurement of execution from a person incapable of understanding its contents.

On Section 471 IPC, the Court held that the offence necessarily presupposes the existence of a forged document: “Once the very foundation of forgery disappears, the allegation of using a forged document necessarily collapses. The superstructure cannot survive after the foundation has ceased to exist.”

The charge of cheating under Section 420 IPC fared no better. Deception, the Court said, is the soul of the offence, and the complainant never alleged that she was induced to part with any property, that she acted upon any representation made by the petitioners, or that she altered her legal position on account of any deception practised upon her. The bank may have acted upon the affidavit, the Court noted, but that by itself does not satisfy the ingredients of cheating vis-à-vis the complainant.

Addressing the submission that the affidavit was deliberately false, the Court observed: “If a person deliberately files a false affidavit before a competent authority, the law itself provides specific remedies for such conduct, including proceedings relating to false evidence, perjury or other offences specifically attracted by the facts of a given case. However, every false affidavit is not a forged affidavit. Likewise, every incorrect declaration does not become a false document.”

Invoking the maxims quando aliquid prohibetur ex directo, prohibetur et per obliquum and nullum crimen sine lege, the Court held that the dispute was overwhelmingly civil in character, revolving around rival claims of succession amongst siblings — matters pre-eminently falling within the jurisdiction of civil and succession courts — and that permitting the prosecution to continue would convert criminal law into a coercive mechanism for resolution of a purely private inheritance dispute.

Allowing the petition on Jul 28, 2026, the Court quashed the FIR together with all consequential proceedings, including the investigation and charge sheet, if any, qua the petitioners. It clarified that it has expressed no opinion on the inter se civil rights, succession or proprietary claims of the parties, which remain open for adjudication before the competent civil forum, and that any authority otherwise empowered under law to examine the correctness of the affidavit remains free to act strictly in accordance with law.

Title: Arvind Dave & Ors. v State of Rajasthan & Anr.

Case No.: S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 2034/2023

Citation: [2026:RJ-JP:31318]

Counsel for petitioners: Mr. Amba Lal

Counsel for respondents: Mr. N.S. Chandawat, Dy.G.A.; Mr. B.R. Bishnoi