Acceptable signature in criminal complaint

602 votes

1. File a written objection before the concerned CAW Cell / IO stating that the said letters were not signed by you and were unauthorized. 2. Request the department to produce the originals and verify under Sec. 78 of BSA, 2023 (old Sec. 67 IEA). 3. Under IT Act, 2000 Sec 3A & 5, a digital/printed signature without consent is not a valid authenticated signature. 4. You may also move an application for forensic examination of signature. This unauthorized act may amount to forgery u/s 318-319 BNS (old 463/464 IPC) and cheating.

Advocate Anchal LawRato

947 votes

In government, quasi-judicial, and law enforcement agencies in India (such as a CAW Cell, National/State Commission for Women, or a local Police Station), physical documents must generally bear an original, wet-ink signature to be accepted as a valid written statement or formal complaint. The unauthorized use of a principal's printed digital signature by an agent creates a serious legal vulnerability and constitutes fraud. Request a certified copy of the submitted document from the department to check if it contains a wet signature, a photocopy, or a digitally pasted graphic. If an agent has acted maliciously and filed unauthorized statements, the principal should immediately submit a signed, wet-ink clarification statement to the head of that specific department (e.g., the DCP supervising the CAW cell) stating that the agent's prior submissions were unauthorized.

Advocate Rajeev Kumar LawRato

626 votes

If the complainant disputes having signed or authorized the documents, the issue can be raised before the concerned authority/court and the original records, mode of submission, authorization and supporting evidence can be examined

Advocate Pooja Patel LawRato

598 votes

There is no universal rule that every written complaint or statement submitted to a police station, CAW Cell or Women’s Commission must necessarily bear an original wet-ink signature. The receiving authority may accept a typed/printed statement bearing a signature, scanned signature, or electronically submitted document depending upon its prescribed procedure. However, where the authenticity or execution of the statement is subsequently disputed, the person relying upon the document may have to establish that it was actually authorised and submitted by the complainant. In your case, the more important issue is not simply whether the signature was in wet ink, but whether the complainant actually authorised the contents and the manner in which the document was submitted. If a representative/agent independently prepared and submitted documents using the principal's printed or digital signature without authority, that is materially different from a document which the complainant herself prepared, approved and authorised to be submitted. If the representative merely pasted an image of the complainant's signature onto a document without her knowledge or authority, you should preserve the original documents, metadata/email/WhatsApp communications, covering letters, acknowledgement receipts and any other material showing who prepared and submitted them. Depending upon the evidence and the precise manner in which the signature was reproduced, such conduct can potentially raise issues of unauthorised use, making a false document/electronic record, forgery or use of a forged document, but criminal liability will depend upon proof of dishonest/fraudulent intention and the exact circumstances. Since the matter is approximately 15 years old and arose under the IPC regime, the law applicable to the alleged act and the date of the alleged fabrication/submission will have to be considered rather than automatically applying the present criminal provisions. The fact that a document contains a printed signature, by itself, does not establish forgery. You would need to establish that the signature/authority was used without consent and that the document was falsely represented as having been made or authorised by the complainant. Accordingly, if your defence is that the representative submitted the documents on his own by unauthorisedly using the principal's printed/digital signature, focus on proving the absence of authorisation rather than merely arguing that the signature was not wet ink. A forensic/document examination and the original electronic files may also become relevant if the authenticity of the signature is specifically disputed.

Advocate Yuganshu Sharma LawRato

743 votes

There is no universal rule that every written complaint/supplementary representation submitted before the CAW Cell, NCW/State Commission for Women or police must necessarily bear a wet-ink signature. Authorities may receive scanned/electronic copies or documents bearing a reproduced signature, subject to their procedure. However, where the authenticity of the complainant’s signature or authority is specifically disputed, a printed/reproduced digital signature cannot by itself establish that the document was actually signed or authorised by the complainant. In such a situation, the concerned authority should be requested to call for the original signed document, verify the complainant’s authorship/authorisation, and preserve the original electronic record and submission trail. If an agent independently submitted documents using the principal’s reproduced signature without authority, that fact should be specifically placed on record and the authenticity and evidentiary value of those documents challenged.

Advocate Kawaljit Singh Bhatia LawRato