Missing Original Document Does Not Automatically Bar a Forgery Trial: Supreme Court Restores Charges Over Allegedly Altered Building Plan

Case Name: Antonetto J D’Souza v. Aldila Braganza and Others

Date of Judgment: 22 September 2026

Citation: 2026 INSC 1032

Bench: Ujjal Bhuyan and Atul S. Chandurkar, JJ.

Held: The absence of the original building plan from the chargesheet did not, by itself, justify discharging the accused at the stage of framing charges. The court’s task at that stage was to decide whether the material on record disclosed sufficient grounds to proceed, not to determine whether the prosecution would ultimately prove the alleged forgery. The High Court had reappreciated the material and discharged the accused despite an earlier Division Bench having declined to interfere with the prosecution on substantially the same objections.

Summary: The informant alleged that his neighbours used an altered copy of an approved building plan to justify construction and submitted it as genuine before the authorities. A Magistrate found prima facie material to frame charges under Sections 468, 471 and 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, and the Sessions Court upheld that order. After an earlier High Court challenge failed, the accused filed another petition arguing that the original plan had never been recovered. A Single Judge accepted that argument and discharged her. The Supreme Court held that the Single Judge had gone beyond the limited inquiry permitted at the charge stage by reassessing whether the available material would establish forgery at trial. Whether the documents and witness evidence prove the allegations remains for the trial court to decide.

Decision: The Supreme Court allowed the informant’s appeal, set aside the High Court’s discharge order and restored the criminal proceedings before the Magistrate.