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.
The legal framework in short
Section 151 CPC: the “safety valve”
Section 151 CPC preserves the inherent power of every civil court “to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of the Court.” Courts consistently describe this as a residual or safety‑valve jurisdiction: it fills gaps where the Code is silent, but cannot override express provisions or create new substantive remedies contrary to the scheme of the Code.
The Supreme Court in Indian Bank v. Satyam Fibres (India) Pvt. Ltd. held that courts and tribunals have inherent power to recall their own orders if obtained by fraud or misrepresentation, emphasising that “no judgment of a court… can be allowed to stand if it has been obtained by fraud” and that “fraud unravels everything.” This power is routinely traced back to Section 151 CPC in civil courts and to analogous inherent powers in quasi‑judicial forums.
Section 215 & 379 BNSS (earlier 195 & 340 CrPC)
The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 replaces Sections 195 and 340 CrPC with Sections 215 and 379. The basic structure remains the same.
Section 215 BNSS restricts cognizance for three categories of offences:
Contempt of lawful authority of public servants;
Offences against public justice (e.g. perjury, fabricating evidence, false charges);
Offences relating to documents given in evidence in court.
For specified Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) offences (e.g. false evidence, fabricating false evidence, false claims, fraudulently obtaining decrees), the court can only take cognizance on a written complaint of the concerned court/public servant.
Section 379 BNSS (earlier Section 340 CrPC) prescribes the procedure:
The court must form a judicial opinion that it is expedient in the interests of justice to inquire into or prosecute such offences;
It may conduct a preliminary inquiry (not mandatory), record reasons, and then make a written complaint to the Magistrate.
Recent case law (e.g. a Karnataka High Court decision on Section 379 BNSS) stresses that courts must not mechanically lodge complaints: they must record clear reasons why an inquiry or prosecution is necessary to protect administration of justice.[
Key point: For offences squarely covered by Section 215(1)(b) BNSS (offences against public justice and evidence‑related offences committed in, or in relation to, proceedings in court), the special procedure of Section 379 BNSS is mandatory. Section 151 CPC cannot be used to bypass that bar.
Fraud on the court: settled Supreme Court principles
A line of Supreme Court decisions has crystallised some core principles:
S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath and A.V. Papayya Sastry v. Govt. of A.P. hold that a decree obtained by playing fraud on the court is a nullity and non est; such a decree can be treated as void even in collateral proceedings, and the principle of finality cannot be used as an “engine of fraud.”
Indian Bank v. Satyam Fibres (India) Pvt. Ltd. applies this logic expressly to recall by a judicial or quasi‑judicial body, affirming that inherent powers can be used to recall orders obtained by fraud.
Commentary summarising Indian Bank puts it this way: the court possesses inherent powers under Section 151 CPC to recall its judgment when it has been obtained by fraud or by suppressing material facts.
Thus, fraud on the court justifies two things:
Civil consequence – recall/dismissal of the tainted proceeding; and
Criminal consequence – prosecution for offences against public justice (perjury, fabrication, false claims, fraudulent decrees) and, where appropriate, forgeries committed outside court.
How does Section 151 CPC connect to criminal prosecution?
1. The boundary created by Section 215/379 BNSS
Where a party fabricates evidence or commits perjury in the course of proceedings, or forges documents that are produced in court, and the alleged offences fall within the BNS sections enumerated in Section 215(1)(b), the court’s route is clear: it must consider a complaint under Section 379 BNSS (old Section 340 CrPC).
In such cases, the court cannot circumvent the statutory bar by directing a police FIR through Section 151 CPC; the bar on cognizance (without a court complaint) is mandatory. Section 151 remains available for procedural orders—e.g., to regulate how the Section 379 process will be conducted—but not to create an alternate prosecutorial route.
2. Forgery and fraud outside the court record
However, a different situation arises where the core forgery is complete before the dispute ever comes to court, and the forged document is later used as a stepping stone to litigation—for example:
Forged land records or patta;
Forged departmental orders;
Bogus official letters and counterfeit seals that purport to emanate from public authorities.
The Supreme Court in Iqbal Singh Marwah v. Meenakshi Marwah (interpreting old Sections 195 and 340 CrPC) made it clear that where a document is forged before it is produced in court, and the offence does not fall exclusively within the classes protected by Section 195(1)(b), the ordinary criminal law can be set in motion through an FIR; the bar of Section 195 does not apply to everything tangentially connected to a court case.
The Madras High Court, in N. Natarajan v. Executive Officer, Chitlapakkam Town Panchayat, exemplifies this approach: finding that settlement deeds relating to a road‑portion were forged, the court upheld extensive civil relief and also directed the Tahsildar to forward a complaint to police. It located this power in the court’s inherent jurisdiction—Section 151 CPC—stating that “forgery is a fraud” and courts must not be helpless bystanders where fraud on public property is prima facie established.
Similarly, High Courts (including decisions in land‑acquisition contexts) have directed authorities like Collectors to lodge criminal complaints where forged official letters and seals were used in connection with claims for compensation, treating this as a legitimate use of inherent power complementary to the Section 195/215 scheme.
3. Limits from recent Supreme Court guidance
The Supreme Court has also cautioned that Section 151 CPC is not a substitute for appeal/revision and cannot be invoked where alternative statutory remedies exist and are adequate, or to override express prohibitions. In the fraud context, this means:
Use Section 151 CPC sparingly, in situations where the Code is silent and justice would otherwise be defeated;
Never employ it to nullify the carefully drafted limitations in Section 215/379 BNSS (old Section 195/340 CrPC).
A fictional case study: “The Phantom Acquisition Letter”
To see how these principles work in practice, consider a purely fictional illustration.
The background
A State Government acquires agricultural land in Village A for a reservoir project. An award is passed by the Land Acquisition Officer (LAO) granting compensation to several landowners. A few years later, a set of “reference petitions” for enhanced compensation appear before the District Court.
Each petition is accompanied by:
A covering letter, purportedly issued by the LAO, stating that the landowners’ applications under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act have been allowed and are being referred to the court;
Several enclosures bearing rubber stamps in the name of the LAO’s office and signatures that appear to be those of various officials.
On this basis, the District Court registers the references. One batch of references is decided ex parte, granting hefty enhancement and statutory benefits. A second batch comes up before a different Reference Court.
The unravelling
During the second batch, the State raises a preliminary objection, alleging that:
The forwarding letter is forged;
The stamps used are not official office seals;
No applications under Section 18 were ever received from these claimants on the dates mentioned.
The Reference Court examines:
The LAO (present incumbent), who categorically denies issuing the letter, identifies her actual letterheads and seals, and points out differences in language, format, and design;
Certified specimens of the genuine rubber stamps used for inward/outward and for designation seals;
Internal registers showing no receipt of any Section 18 applications from the claimants.
The court records detailed findings that:
The forwarding letter is a forged document created entirely outside the LAO’s office.
The rubber stamps on the petitions and enclosures are counterfeit seals; the signatures within them do not match any serving or past officials.
The claimants and their advocate have used these forged documents to create an appearance of jurisdiction under Section 18 and to obtain inflated awards in the earlier batch.
Civil consequences
Relying on the fraud‑on‑the‑court jurisprudence, the Reference Court:
Dismisses the pending references, refusing enhancement;
Declares that the earlier enhancement awards (in the first batch) were obtained by fraud on the court, treats them as non est, and initiates steps to recall/set aside those awards.
This squarely follows the Supreme Court line that decrees and orders obtained by fraud on the court are nullities and can be reopened notwithstanding finality.
Criminal consequences: separating two tracks
The judge then turns to criminal law. She carefully distinguishes two sets of wrongs:
Offences “on the record of the court” – filing forged documents in court, giving false evidence, making false claims, and fraudulently obtaining decrees. These fall within the BNS provisions listed in Section 215(1)(b) BNSS (e.g. offences akin to giving false evidence, fabricating evidence, false claim, fraudulent decree).
Offences entirely outside court – fabricating the forwarding letter, manufacturing counterfeit seals and letterheads, and possibly conspiring within private offices to misuse official identity, all of which occurred before any document entered “custodia legis”.
For category (1), the judge:
Forms an opinion that it is expedient in the interest of justice to prosecute, given the magnitude of fraud and impact on public justice;
Records reasons in a speaking order;
Directs the Registrar/ Nazir to file a written complaint before the jurisdictional Magistrate under Section 379 BNSS read with Section 215(1)(b), enclosing the relevant documents and findings.
For category (2), the judge reasons that:
These forgeries are independent offences under BNS chapters on forgery and public servant impersonation;
They were completed before any court proceeding, so Section 215(1)(b) BNSS does not bar ordinary police investigation;
The quantum of public money at stake and the deliberate misuse of governmental identity justify a firm judicial response.
Invoking Section 151 CPC, the court therefore:
Directs the District Collector (as head of the acquiring department) to lodge an FIR with the economic offences wing against the claimants, advocate, and any other involved persons;
Requires a compliance report (copy of FIR and basic case details) to be filed within a fixed time.
This order does not itself “take cognizance” of any offence; it merely ensures that the ordinary criminal law machinery is activated, in circumstances where the executive had shown reluctance to act despite clear findings of serious fraud. It respects the statutory bar in Section 215 BNSS for court‑centric offences while still using Section 151 CPC to prevent abuse of process and protect public funds.
When should a judge consider using Section 151 CPC for prosecution‑related directions?
Synthesising the case law and commentary, the following practical criteria emerge:
There is clear prima facie material of serious fraud/forgery
The court is not dealing with minor discrepancies or doubtful evidence, but with deliberate fabrication: forged official letters, counterfeit seals, bogus court or departmental orders, or calculated suppression of vital documents.
The core forgery occurred outside court and is not locked behind the Section 215/379 BNSS bar
If the offence relates to fabrication/giving false evidence in court or to documents produced as evidence, use Section 215/379 BNSS.
If the offence concerns documents created independently before the case (e.g. forged Government orders, patta, sanction letters) and used to approach the court, police can act on an FIR; Section 151 CPC can be used to direct an appropriate authority to lodge that FIR.
The fraud substantially affects administration of justice or public interest
The more the conduct undermines confidence in courts (false jurisdictional foundations, bogus references, fraudulent decrees) or endangers public money, the stronger the justification for judicially‑triggered criminal action.
There is evident inaction or reluctance of authorities
If, despite internal inquiries and clear findings, no concrete steps are taken by the department or police, the court may legitimately invoke Section 151 CPC to compel action, as in N. Natarajan and other High Court decisions.
No adequate alternative remedy exists within the CPC/BNSS framework
Where an express remedy (appeal, revision, review, Section 379 BNSS complaint) is available and adequate, Section 151 should not be used as a shortcut. It is a residual power, not a parallel code.
Suggested structuring of orders (for judicial practice)
When a civil court decides that both the special BNSS route and the inherent power route need to be used, its order can be structured along these lines (adapted to the facts):
Record detailed findings on fraud
Identify specific forged documents, counterfeit seals, misrepresentations, and the manner in which they were used to mislead the court.
Link the fraud to its consequences: wrongful jurisdiction, wrongful decrees, wrongful public payments, etc.
Deal with civil relief first
Dismiss/refuse/recall tainted suits, references, or decrees, with reasons grounded in Chengalvaraya Naidu, Papayya Sastry, and Indian Bank v. Satyam Fibres principles of fraud on the court.
Invoke Section 215/379 BNSS (old 195/340 CrPC) where applicable
Specify which acts fall within “offences against public justice” or “offences relating to documents given in evidence in a proceeding in court” as per Section 215(1)(b) BNSS, and why inquiry/prosecution is expedient in the interest of justice.
Authorise a court officer to file complaints under Section 379 BNSS, enclosing the judgment and relevant record.
Then, if justified, invoke Section 151 CPC for outside‑court fraud
Clarify that the court is acting under Section 151 CPC only for offences not blocked by Section 215 BNSS, typically forgeries and conspiracies that occurred before any approach to the court.
Direct a specified authority (e.g. Collector, departmental head, statutory regulator) to lodge an FIR/complaint with police, within a fixed timeframe, and to file a basic compliance report.
Avoid supervising the criminal case
Make it clear that once the FIR/complaints are lodged, investigation and prosecution will be entirely in the criminal court’s domain, and the civil court will not monitor merits of the investigation save where law expressly so provides.
Conclusion: the core message for readers
For legal practitioners and judges, the takeaway is two‑fold:
Section 151 CPC is a shield and sometimes a sword: it allows civil courts to protect the integrity of their own process—recalling orders obtained by fraud and, where necessary, ensuring that egregious independent forgeries are reported to the police. But it is a carefully limited power that cannot override the special procedure for offences against public justice under Section 215/379 BNSS.
The real art lies in classification: distinguish precisely which parts of the fraud are “in‑court” (Section 215/379 BNSS territory) and which are “outside‑court” (where ordinary FIR and Section 151 directions may operate). Once that line is kept clear, courts can both punish fraud and preserve statutory safeguards, without disclosing any particular litigant’s personal saga.
No comments:
Post a Comment