Citation: Antonetto J. D’Souza v. Aldila Braganza and Others (Criminal Appeal No. 4092 of 2026, reported as 2026 INSC 1032)
The absence of an original document (such as an alleged forged plan) from the chargesheet does not automatically invalidate a prosecution for forgery or warrant the quashing of charges at a preliminary stage; instead, the prosecution can attempt to prove the offense through other evidence during the trial, and courts should not deeply re-appreciate evidence or entertain repetitive challenges to discharge an accused when a prima facie case of grave suspicion exists.
The dispute began when an informant accused his neighbor and her father-in-law of constructing a structure using a forged and altered building plan submitted to the local authorities, leading to a police complaint and a 2012 First Information Report for forgery and cheating. After investigating, the police filed a chargesheet, and a magistrate officially framed charges against the accused in 2017 after concluding there was enough preliminary material, a decision that was later upheld by the Sessions Court.
Although the accused failed in her initial attempts to challenge the case in the High Court, she filed a subsequent writ petition where the High Court discharged her, reasoning that the prosecution could not prove forgery without the original plan.
The Supreme Court overturned High Court’s ruling, deciding that the absence of the original document does not automatically kill a forgery case, and ordered the long-delayed trial to finally proceed.
