Madras HC: Under which circumstances the court can direct forwarding of complaint to police under S 151 of CPC?

 In the case on hand, since, as I have already pointed out, the offence of forgery of Exs. A2 and A3 was committed outside the Court, even before they were produced before the Court, there can be no impediment for the police to register a case. When it was pointed out by this Court to the learned counsel on either side that this Court has power to issue a direction to the Tahsildar, Tambaram to forward a complaint to the police in respect of the above offence of forgery, for registration of a criminal case so as to investigate the same thoroughly to find out the real culprits, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that such power is not available for this Court in a civil proceedings. Of course, it is true that there is no express provision in the Civil Procedure Code specifically empowering a Civil Court to issue a direction either to a party or to a witness to make a complaint to the police. But at the same time, it needs to be noted that there is no prohibition, either express or implied, thereby prohibiting a Civil Court from issuing any direction to a party or a witness to forward a complaint to the police when a serious offence of forgery is alleged. {Para 59}

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS

Second Appeal No. 479 of 2012 and M.P. Nos. 1 and 2 of 2012

Decided On: 30.03.2015

N. Natarajan Vs. The Executive Officer

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

S. Nagamuthu, J.

Citation: MANU/TN/0811/2015

Print Page

Supreme Court: Whether the court should consider gravity of offence alongwith triple test before releasing any accused on regular bail?

Thus from cumulative perusal of the judgments cited on either side including the one rendered by the Constitution Bench of this Court, it could be deduced that the basic jurisprudence relating to bail remains the same inasmuch as the grant of bail is the Rule and refusal is the exception so as to ensure that the Accused has the opportunity of securing fair trial. However, while considering the same the gravity of the offence is an aspect which is required to be kept in view by the Court. The gravity for the said purpose will have to be gathered from the facts and circumstances arising in each case. Keeping in view the consequences that would befall on the society in cases of financial irregularities, it has been held that even economic offences would fall under the category of "grave offence" and in such circumstance while considering the application for bail in such matters, the Court will have to deal with the same, being sensitive to the nature of allegation made against the Accused. One of the circumstances to consider the gravity of the offence is also the term of sentence that is prescribed for the offence the Accused is alleged to have committed. Such consideration with regard to the gravity of offence is a factor which is in addition to the triple test or the tripod test that would be normally applied. In that regard what is also to be kept in perspective is that even if the allegation is one of grave economic offence, it is not a Rule that bail should be denied in every case since there is no such bar created in the relevant enactment passed by the legislature nor does the bail jurisprudence provides so. Therefore, the underlining conclusion is that irrespective of the nature and gravity of charge, the precedent of another case alone will not be the basis for either grant or refusal of bail though it may have a bearing on principle. But ultimately the consideration will have to be on case to case basis on the facts involved therein and securing the presence of the Accused to stand trial. {Para 21}

22. In the above circumstance it would be clear that even after concluding the triple test in favour of the Appellant the learned Judge of the High Court was certainly justified in adverting to the issue relating to the gravity of the offence.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 1831/2019 

Decided On: 04.12.2019

P. Chidambaram Vs. Directorate of Enforcement

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

R. Banumathi, A.S. Bopanna and Hrishikesh Roy, JJ.

Author: A.S. Bopanna, J.

Citation: 2019 INSC 1317, MANU/SC/1670/2019

Print Page

Fraud at the Courthouse Door: When Can Civil Courts Use Section 151 CPC to Set the Criminal Law in Motion?

 Why this question matters

Civil judges increasingly encounter forged documents, fabricated seals, and engineered “fraud on the court” designed to siphon public money or manipulate rights. The immediate civil response is clear: refuse or recall relief obtained by fraud. But a connected and difficult question is: can the civil court itself trigger criminal prosecution, and if so, when and how, under Section 151 CPC?

Supreme Court and High Court jurisprudence now fairly clearly recognises that inherent powers under Section 151 can be used to protect the integrity of judicial proceedings—including by undoing orders obtained by fraud and, in appropriate cases, by directing that serious independent forgeries be reported to the police. This operates alongside, and not in derogation of, the special mechanism for “offences against public justice” under Section 195/340 CrPC, now Section 215/379 BNSS.

Print Page

Bombay HC: Under which circumstances registration of two independent proceedings for one and the same offence is permissible

The petitioners raised one more objection that impugned directions would result into registration of two independent proceedings for one and the same offence, as directions are given to Collector to lodge FIR/police report and further directions are given to Assistant Superintendent of Court to file separate complaints with Judicial Magistrate. This Court finds that aforesaid objection is fallacious. On the basis of evidence led during course of trial, Reference Court noticed that manipulated reference letter and documents were used on record of Court for presentation, registration of prosecution of land acquisition references and offences of preparation of false or manipulated documents are committed before presentation of references in connivance with many other persons, who are not parties to petition or directly involved in prosecution of references. In that backdrop, for offence covered under Section 215(1)(b) of BNSS, 2023, directions are given to Assistant Superintendent of Court to file separate complaints with Magistrate and for offences which are committed outside Court prior to presentation of references, directions are given to Collector to lodge FIR/police report. In this backdrop, in light of law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Iqbal Singh Marwah (supra), Reference Court formed opinion regarding commission of offence referred under Section 195(1)(b) of Cr.P.C. (Section 215(1)(b) of BNSS, 2023) and followed further procedure and left Collector to lodge FIR in respect of offences which are not committed on record of Court. This Court finds no fault in course adopted by Reference Court while issuing two different directions. {Para 20}

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (AURANGABAD BENCH)

Writ Petition No. 1676 of 2026

Decided On: 06.05.2026

Raghunath and Ors. Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

S.G. Chapalgaonkar, J.

Citation: 2026:BHC-AUG:21519,MANU/MH/4472/2026

Print Page