Supreme Court rejects discharge of accused in forgery case over missing deed

The core issue is whether the failure to produce the original deed/plan in the chargesheet is a sufficient ground to discharge the accused at the pre-trial stage.

Who it concerns: Petitioner/Appellant: Antonetto J D’Souza (Informant); Respondent/Accused: Aldila Braganza; Bench: Justice Atul S. Chandurkar.

What the court decided

• The Supreme Court held that the High Court was not justified in quashing the order framing charges and the order upholding it by the Sessions Court.
• The Court impliedly rejected the High Court's view that the absence of the original plan prevented the framing of charges.
• The Court noted that the High Court had previously refused to interfere with the FIR and chargesheet in an earlier writ petition (Criminal Writ Petition No.80/2023) before discharging the accused in a subsequent petition.

Also in the document

• The judgment is marked as 'REPORTABLE'.
• The proceedings have a history spanning from 2012 (FIR registration) to 2026 (Supreme Court appeal).
• The father-in-law of the accused, who was also an accused, expired during the pendency of the proceedings, causing those proceedings to abate against him.