Forgery Allegations in Dera Trust Cannot Be Quashed at Investigation Stage: Punjab & Haryana High Court Orders Expeditious Probe
Case Name: Ravi Shankar & Others v. State of Haryana & Another; Jitender Singh Sheokand v. State of Haryana & Others
Date of Judgment: 29 May 2026
Citation: CRM-M-1429-2014 and CRM-M-2905-2014
Bench: Justice H.S. Grewal
Held: The Punjab & Haryana High Court refused to quash an FIR alleging forgery, criminal breach of trust, misappropriation of Dera property, and fraudulent creation of trust documents, holding that the allegations disclosed disputed questions of fact requiring thorough police investigation. The Court further directed the investigating agency to complete the probe expeditiously.
Summary: The case arose from allegations concerning Acharya Mahamandleshwar Swami Ganeshanand Maharaj Dharmarth Trust, Uchana, a religious and charitable institution possessing substantial property and operating charitable activities. After the death of Swami Ganeshanand, disputes emerged regarding management of the Dera, its assets, and trust documents.
The complainant alleged that Ravi Shankar, who was entrusted with handling accounts and administrative affairs of the Dera, abused the confidence reposed in him by the aging head of the institution. It was alleged that he forged signatures, fraudulently prepared and registered a trust deed, manipulated trust records, facilitated execution of sale deeds in favour of his wife concerning Dera property, and withdrew funds from various accounts connected with the institution.
Initially, the Magistrate declined a request under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for registration of an FIR and directed the complainant to lead preliminary evidence. However, the Additional Sessions Judge allowed the revision petition and directed investigation, following which the impugned FIR was registered for offences including criminal breach of trust, forgery, use of forged documents, and conspiracy.
Before the High Court, the accused contended that the revision petition itself was not maintainable because the Magistrate’s order was merely interlocutory. They also argued that the disputed property belonged personally to the deceased Swami and not to the Dera or Trust, and therefore no criminal offence was made out.
Rejecting these submissions, the Court observed that an order refusing investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. cannot automatically be treated as a purely interlocutory order. Relying upon established precedent, the Court held that orders substantially affecting rights of parties are amenable to revisional jurisdiction.
The Court further noted that the complaint contained specific allegations regarding forgery of trust documents, questionable sale transactions, and misappropriation of institutional funds. Such allegations could not be dismissed as vague or bald assertions. The defence that the property was personal property of the deceased and that the transactions were genuine raised disputed factual issues requiring investigation and evidence.
Decision: The High Court held that the case did not fall within any of the exceptional categories warranting quashing under the principles laid down in Bhajan Lal. Since serious allegations of forgery, breach of trust, manipulation of trust records, and diversion of institutional assets required factual examination, the FIR and consequential proceedings could not be quashed at the threshold. Accordingly, CRM-M-1429-2014 seeking quashing was dismissed. Simultaneously, CRM-M-2905-2014 was allowed and the investigating agency was directed to complete the investigation expeditiously and proceed in accordance with law.