The Rajasthan High Court has dismissed an FIR against three siblings, emphasizing that an incorrect declaration of heirship in an affidavit does not equate to forgery.
New Delhi, India Jul 29, 2026 ALN: 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. This ruling has significant implications for how legal disputes over inheritance are handled in India, particularly in the context of familial relationships and the sensitive nature of succession laws.
The case stems from a dispute among siblings following the death of their parents. The siblings involved had invoked the inherent jurisdiction of the Court under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) seeking quashing of FIR No. 80/2022 dated July 18, 2022, which was registered at Police Station Transport Nagar, District Pali for offences punishable under Sections 420 (cheating), 467 (forgery of valuable security), 468 (forgery for the purpose of cheating), 471 (using as genuine a forged document), and 406 (criminal breach of trust) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
The FIR traced its origin to a complaint filed by respondent Pooja Dave before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pali. In her complaint, she alleged that after the demise of their father on May 7, 2021, and their mother on January 17, 2022, disputes arose among the siblings regarding the succession to the estate. The petitioners, according to her, submitted an affidavit to the concerned bank claiming to be the only legal heirs of their deceased mother, thereby obtaining the release of the amounts lying in her bank accounts and allegedly depriving her of her rightful share in the inheritance.
During the investigation, the police collected banking records, examined witnesses, and scrutinised the affidavit furnished before the bank. However, they discovered no material demonstrating that the affidavit or any other document produced by the petitioners was forged, fabricated, altered, or executed by impersonation. As a result, the investigating agency 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.
In its examination of the case, the Court noted that the affidavit was 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. The Court emphasized that a document becomes “false” in the eyes of the law only when it is brought into existence by impersonation, unauthorized execution on behalf of another, material alteration of an existing document, or procurement of execution from a person incapable of understanding its contents.
On the issue of Section 471 IPC, the Court held that the offence necessarily presupposes the existence of a forged document. The Court stated, “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.” This highlights the importance of establishing the existence of a forged document before any related charges can be sustained.
The charge of cheating under Section 420 IPC was similarly dismissed by the Court. It noted that deception is the essence of the offence, and the complainant did not allege 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 due to any deception practiced upon her. The Court clarified that while the bank may have acted upon the affidavit, this action alone does not satisfy the ingredients of cheating concerning the complainant.
Addressing the submission that the affidavit was deliberately false, the Court remarked, “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.” This assertion underscores the nuanced understanding of legal definitions and the importance of distinguishing between civil and criminal liabilities.
In its ruling, the Court invoked the maxims quando aliquid prohibetur ex directo, prohibetur et per obliquum (when something is prohibited directly, it is also prohibited indirectly) and nullum crimen sine lege (no crime without law), stating that the dispute was overwhelmingly civil in character, revolving around rival claims of succession among siblings. These matters, the Court noted, are primarily within the jurisdiction of civil and succession courts. The Court expressed concern that allowing the prosecution to continue would convert criminal law into a coercive mechanism for resolving a purely private inheritance dispute.
On July 28, 2026, the Court allowed the petition and quashed the FIR along with all consequential proceedings, including the investigation and any charge sheet against the petitioners. The Court clarified that it had 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. Furthermore, any authority empowered under law to examine the correctness of the affidavit remains free to act strictly in accordance with law.
This ruling serves as a critical reminder of the boundaries between civil disputes and criminal allegations, particularly in the context of family law. It reinforces the principle that not every family dispute over inheritance can or should be criminalized, and highlights the need for appropriate legal remedies within civil courts for resolving such disputes. The implications of this ruling extend beyond this particular case, potentially influencing how similar disputes are handled in the future, and emphasizing the importance of proper legal frameworks in addressing issues of inheritance and succession.
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
To learn more about the latest developments in Crime & Law, stay updated with our exclusive reports and analyses on AiLensNews.
