From what you have described, your concerns about delay in forensic investigation and framing of charges are valid, but there are practical and legal ways to handle this situation.

First, regarding the accused approaching the High Court to quash the chargesheet due to delay: generally, a mere delay in framing charges does not automatically entitle the accused to have the chargesheet quashed. Courts recognize that certain investigations, especially involving forensic verification like thumbprints, can take time. The accused could try to argue that their right to a speedy trial is being violated, but unless there is unreasonable, inordinate delay caused without justification, the High Court is unlikely to quash the chargesheet solely for procedural delay. Since the delay here is due to pending forensic investigation ordered by the Magistrate, it is considered a legitimate reason. The court would usually not accept delay caused by necessary investigative steps as a ground for quashing.

Second, regarding the forensic investigation itself: since the Magistrate has already ordered further investigation, the police are legally bound to follow that direction. However, forensic investigations can take months, and sometimes even longer, due to workload at the FSL or procedural requirements. To ensure timely completion, you can:

1. Follow up formally with the police and request written updates on the status of forensic examination. Regular documented follow-ups create a record showing that you are actively monitoring the investigation.

2. File an application in the Magistrate Court seeking directions for completion of the forensic investigation within a reasonable timeframe. Courts often issue directions to ensure that FSL or forensic labs prioritize the investigation, especially when the matter involves property fraud and the victim’s rights are being affected.

3. Consider approaching the District Superintendent of Police or the Director of the Forensic Lab through a legal request, asking for expedition of the examination. This is a practical step to push for prioritization without interfering with the investigation.

4. If there is unreasonable delay even after repeated follow-ups, you can approach the High Court through a writ petition seeking directions to the authorities to complete the forensic examination and proceed with framing of charges. The High Court has powers to direct police and FSL authorities to act within a stipulated time.

The key point is that delays due to legitimate investigation steps, such as forensic verification, are not automatically grounds for dismissal or quashing, but you have legal remedies to ensure the investigation moves forward and the case does not stall indefinitely. Maintaining regular documentation of follow-ups and filing applications for directions are practical steps to keep the case on track.

You can fine a writ petition in HC seeking directions 

Quashing will not be done where there are serious allegations against accused merely because there is delay in submission of charge sheet 

2) file petition in HC to direct forensic lab to submit forensic report within stipulated time 

As the police have already submitted the charge sheet before the court and now the matter has been referred and pending for further investigation the High court may not entertain the quash petition even considering the delay in obtaining the reports on further investigation.

1. Since further investigation is pending which may result in submission of additional charge, the court would not now proceed for framing of charge.

2. Yo expedite the further investigation you can file application before the Magistrate calling for report on progress of further investigation or file revision in High court against Police inaction. 

The accused cannot get the charge-sheet quashed merely because the framing of charges is delayed due to a court-ordered further investigation; delay alone is not a valid ground for quashing under Section 482 CrPC unless it amounts to a violation of the right to a speedy trial with proven prejudice.

To expedite the process, your mother can file an application before the Magistrate seeking a specific time-bound direction to the police for completing the further investigation or, alternatively, approach the High Court under Article 226 or Section 482 CrPC requesting supervisory directions to the police or the FSL to complete the forensic examination within a fixed timeframe.

• The accused cannot get the chargesheet quashed only due to delay.
• You can move for time-bound directions to complete the FSL and further investigation.
• Keep documenting all follow-ups with police to show diligence on your part.

Dear Client,
The accused does not have a right to request the High Court to quash the chargesheet simply on the basis that there is excessive wait time to frame the charges, due to an ongoing forensic inquiry. Yes, the right to a speedy trial is a constitutional right under Article 21, but the courts generally will not quash or dismiss the charges on the sole basis of delay associated with an ongoing forensic inquiry, where there is a legitimate reason for the delay, specifically, the ongoing forensic inquiry on the express order of a magistrate. In that case, the court will not look at whether the particular time associated with the forensic inquiry was unreasonable; they would only look at whether the time and delay were unreasonable, or if there was a significant prejudice to the rights of the accused. To the extent that the police or forensic science laboratory takes too long to complete the forensic science and getting the results of the examination back to the police for court action, the aggrieved applicant could apply to the High Court to seek a writ saying the forensic science lab must complete the examination, with expectations and timelines (i.e. "time limits") for producing a deliverable and completing those inquiries and examination for the police to view, and then for the police to take action, if warranted.
As for when delay and time is considered unreasonable, you would have to seek judicial determination on what the next timing may look like if the delay time and timing were extensive but the inquiry is completed.
Thus, it would be prudent to follow up continuously on proper oversight on that the time to completing the forensic inquiry inquiry and write a clear letter addressed to that specific agency somewhat advising, and even more so asking the High Court, if necessary, to complete their inquiry and to frame charges as soon as possible. I hope this answer helps. For any more queries, do not hesitate to contact us.

1. In the first place, no forensic is necessary in your case. A sale deed is executed  in name of seller claiming him to dead. The seller is alive, this is the  end of imposter. Mother needs to stand in the  Court and submit I here and the  accused has registered sale deed claiming me dead.
2. From your question it is not clear under what provisions criminal complaint is filed.
3. Appropriate provision is Section 82 of Registration Act with provides punishment of seven years imprisonment  for making false statement before Registration authority.
4. Such crime complaint can be filed by the  affected party directly in the  Court of Magistrate . there is law laid down by SC.

Admission made by second accused can be relied upon during trial for his conviction 

The records for admitting his offence would serve as documentary evidences to the subject matter which yo are trying to establish before court of law,hence the police may be right to say that as this is an admitted case, the forensic department's opinion may not be necessary to prove the already proven case. 

So, about your question — whether the admission made by the second accused in his High Court bail application would be enough to convict him.

The short answer is: no, it’s not enough by itself.

A bail application is not part of the actual trial. It’s just a request to get released from custody. Whatever the accused says there, like “yes, I was present” or “I was influenced,” is said in that limited context. Courts do not treat those statements as proof of guilt or as final admissions. They’re not considered proper evidence under the Evidence Act for conviction purposes.

At most, such statements can be looked at as supporting material or a circumstance that indicates something, but they always need to be backed up with independent proof — like documents, witness statements, or forensic results.

So, even if this second accused admitted in his bail papers that he was involved but claimed he was influenced or misled, the prosecution can’t rely on that alone to get him convicted. It must still be proven through evidence that he knowingly participated in the fraud — that he was part of the preparation or execution of the forged sale deed, and that he had criminal intent.

Now about the police saying that forensic analysis isn’t needed for him because he has already admitted his identity. That’s not correct reasoning. Even if someone admits their identity once, they can always retract that statement later or claim it was misunderstood. Without forensic evidence — like matching his thumbprints or signatures on the fraudulent sale deed or on the forged Aadhaar card — there’s no solid physical link between him and the crime.

So, from a legal and practical point of view, forensic analysis for both accused is important. It will make the case stronger and remove any room for doubt later in court.

You can move an application before the Magistrate saying that the second accused also used a forged Aadhaar card, and therefore his forensic verification is equally necessary for a fair and complete investigation. You can also point out that the statement in his bail application cannot replace proper forensic evidence.

It can be corroborated but not sufficient 

Bail Application Admissions - NOT Sufficient for Conviction

No, admissions in bail application are insufficient. Key legal principles:​

1. Generally Inadmissible​

• Statements in bail applications are not admissible as evidence in criminal trials

• Made without proper legal safeguards required for confessions​

• Courts consider them hearsay unless they fall under specific exceptions​

2. Legal Requirements for Valid Confession​

• Must be recorded under Section 164 CrPC with judicial safeguards

• Need voluntary confession before magistrate with warnings

• Joint trial requirement under Section 30 Evidence Act for co-accused statements​

3. What Police Should Do

• Record proper Section 164 confession from second accused

• Cannot rely solely on bail application statements​

• Need corroborative evidence beyond admissions​

Recommendation

Demand police to:

1. Record Section 164 CrPC confession from second accused

2. Conduct forensic analysis of forged Aadhaar card

3. Gather independent corroborative evidence

Bail admissions alone cannot secure conviction - proper legal procedure required.

STEP WISE ANSWER(AS ASKED):

1. Evidentiary value of a statement in a bail application
A bail application is not a sworn statement recorded as evidence under oath. It is generally a pleading or submission made through counsel to persuade the court to grant bail, not a formal confession or deposition under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Admissions in such documents can be treated as admissions under Section 17 of the Evidence Act, but courts treat them cautiously, especially when made for a limited procedural purpose (such as obtaining bail).

The prosecution can use such an admission as a corroborative piece of evidence — that is, to support or strengthen other direct or circumstantial evidence already on record. However, the bail application alone cannot be the sole basis for conviction. It does, though, significantly reduce the burden of proving identity if other surrounding facts match.

1. Effect of admission of identity
   If the second accused has clearly stated in his bail application before the High Court that he was indeed the person who participated in executing the forged sale deed, that statement can be used by the prosecution during trial to establish his identity and presence in the transaction.
   However, to convict him for forgery, cheating, or criminal conspiracy, the prosecution must still prove that:

   • He knowingly participated in the fraudulent act;

   • He had knowledge of the false representation or forgery; and

   • He derived or intended to derive wrongful gain.

   His claim that he was “wrongly influenced” or “used” by the first accused is essentially a defence of lack of intent or knowledge — the court will assess it only at the trial stage after evaluating evidence such as his role, signatures, Aadhar usage, communications, or any financial transactions linked to the sale.

2. Need for forensic verification
   Even though he has admitted his identity, forensic verification of his Aadhar card, signatures, or thumb impressions could still strengthen the case. Forensic evidence is objective proof of his involvement and eliminates the defence that he was “influenced” or “duped.” It also corroborates that the same person physically executed the documents.
   Hence, while police discretion in not sending his specimen for FSL may appear reasonable given his admission, it is strategically safer for the prosecution (and for your side as complainant) to insist that the forensic comparison be done for both accused. This prevents future arguments that his admission was misinterpreted or taken out of context.

   You can file a short written application before the Magistrate requesting that forensic verification of both accused be completed, citing that the second accused’s admission relates only to identity and not to the authenticity or voluntary nature of the act.

3. Conviction based on admission
   Courts rarely convict an accused solely on a statement made in a bail application. At most, such a statement becomes an admission of fact (e.g., identity), but not a confession of guilt. For conviction, the prosecution must still produce independent evidence showing his role in facilitating or executing the forged sale deed — such as the registry office records, witness statements, or documentary proof linking his Aadhar or photograph to the fraudulent sale.

4. Next steps for you

   • Ask the investigating officer in writing (with a copy to the SP and the court) to include the second accused’s forensic verification, stressing that his admission of identity does not cover his intent or degree of involvement.

   • If the police do not act, file an application before the Magistrate under Section 173(8) CrPC requesting that the IO be directed to include the forensic analysis of both accused in the supplementary investigation.

   • During trial, you can rely on his bail application statement as corroborative evidence under Section 21 of the Evidence Act (admission of a party).

Summary:
The second accused’s admission in his bail application that he was involved in the transaction is relevant and helpful, but it cannot by itself form the sole basis for conviction. It can be used to prove identity and involvement, but additional evidence — such as documentary proof, forensic results, or witness statements — is necessary to establish knowledge, intent, and participation in the fraudulent act. To strengthen the case, you should still press for forensic verification of both accused so the evidence becomes comprehensive and unassailable.

1. The delay in trial or framing of issues cannot be a ground for quash of the FIR 

2. Since, the forensic is taking time and due to that the trial has been stopped , then you can move an application before the same Court to call the report on earliest. 

- If , the second accused has admitted his offence before the high court , then it will go against him . 

No, the admission in a bail application alone is not sufficient for conviction.

Such an admission can be used as a relevant piece of evidence under Section 21 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, but it cannot by itself prove guilt. The prosecution must still establish the offence through independent evidence, such as the forged Aadhaar card, sale deed, witness statements, and forensic or documentary proof.

The admission may strengthen the prosecution’s case, but conviction requires corroboration beyond what’s stated in the bail application.