This is a nuanced question, and it is one that trips up even people who think they understand forgery law well, because the very word "forgery" carries a legal meaning that does not always match how we use it in everyday conversation. The honest answer is: it depends entirely on what "with my consent" actually means in the eyes of the law, who else is affected by the signed document, and what the document was ultimately used for. Let us break this down carefully, because the distinction here can mean the difference between no offence at all and a serious criminal liability.

Under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), which has replaced the Indian Penal Code, 1860, forgery is defined under Section 336, corresponding to the earlier Section 463 of the IPC. Forgery is committed when a person makes a false document or false electronic record, or part of one, with the intention of causing damage or injury to the public or to any person, or with intent to support any claim or title, or to cause any person to part with property, or to enter into an express or implied contract, or with intent to commit fraud. The critical word here is "false" — a document is false not merely because someone else's hand physically wrote the signature, but because it purports to be something it is not, typically because it is presented as having been signed personally by the person whose name appears on it, without proper authority. If you genuinely authorised someone to sign on your behalf, and that authorisation is clear, then the document, strictly speaking, may not be "false" at all in the legal sense, because it accurately reflects an act you consented to.

This is where the law draws a crucial distinction between forgery and authorised signing, sometimes called signing "per pro" or under a power of attorney, or simply signing with your express permission for convenience. If you tell a colleague, "please sign this form for me since I am travelling," and they do so in your name with your full knowledge, this generally does not amount to forgery under Section 336 of the BNS, because there is no dishonest or fraudulent intent to deceive anyone about who actually authorised the document; the substance of the transaction reflects your genuine will. Courts have consistently held that forgery requires an element of dishonesty or fraudulent intent at the time of making the false document, and where genuine authority exists and is not being misrepresented, that essential ingredient is missing.

However — and this is the part that often catches people off guard — your consent to the act of signing does not automatically immunise every possible use of that signed document from criminal liability, particularly where third parties are involved and may be misled. Consider a situation where you permit someone to sign a bank form on your behalf, but the bank's internal rules, or the nature of the document, specifically require your personal signature and prohibit signing by proxy, precisely because the institution relies on verifying that the actual account holder personally executed the document. In such cases, even though you personally consented, the act may still constitute an offence against the institution or third party who was deceived into believing the signature was genuinely yours, because the fraudulent intent is assessed not just qua you, but qua the person being deceived by the document. This is a subtle but important point: forgery law protects not only the person whose name is used, but also anyone who might rely on the document's authenticity.

This becomes particularly significant in specific categories of documents where personal execution is legally mandated and cannot be delegated even with consent — for instance, affidavits sworn before a notary or oath commissioner, which require the deponent's personal appearance and signature under Section 139 read with provisions of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA), or documents requiring registration under the Registration Act, 1908, which similarly demand personal execution and identification before the Sub-Registrar. If someone signs such a document in your name, even with your blessing, and the document is then presented to a court, government authority, or registration office as having been personally executed by you, this can expose both you and the person who signed on your behalf to liability under Section 336 for forgery, and potentially under Section 340 of the BNS (corresponding to the earlier Section 468 IPC) for forgery committed for the purpose of cheating, particularly if the document is subsequently used to secure a benefit, evade a legal requirement, or mislead an official body.

There is also the separate question of using a forged document, addressed under Section 338 of the BNS (earlier Section 471 IPC), which criminalises fraudulently or dishonestly using a document knowing it to be forged, as if it were genuine. If a document signed by another person in your name, even with your consent, is later submitted somewhere as being personally signed by you, and this causes another party to act on that belief to their detriment, both the signatory and you, as the person who consented to and subsequently used the document, could potentially face scrutiny under this provision, depending on the specific facts and the degree of deception involved toward the third party.

It is also worth addressing a related but distinct concept: even where an act does not meet the threshold of criminal forgery, it may still expose you to civil consequences. If a document signed on your behalf under informal consent is later challenged, you may need to prove the existence and scope of that authorisation, and in the absence of clear, preferably written, evidence of consent, you could find yourself in a difficult evidentiary position, particularly in commercial or property-related disputes where the other party disputes that authorisation was ever granted or claims it exceeded its scope. This is precisely why oral consent, however genuine, is a fragile foundation, and it is always advisable to formalise any such arrangement through a written authorisation letter or a registered power of attorney under the Powers of Attorney Act, 1882, rather than relying on informal permission that can later be denied or disputed.

Given how fact-dependent this area of law is, the safest course when you anticipate needing someone else to sign documents on your behalf is to execute a clear, written, and where appropriate notarised or registered power of attorney specifying exactly what the agent is authorised to sign, since this removes ambiguity about consent altogether and protects both you and the person signing from any later allegation of forgery. If you are already facing a situation where a signature was made in your name, whether with or without clear documented consent, and a dispute or allegation has now arisen, it is important not to assume the matter is straightforward, because the presence of your consent is a factor courts will weigh carefully, but it is not always a complete defence on its own, especially where third-party reliance and institutional requirements for personal execution come into play. Because these situations often carry both criminal exposure under the BNS and civil consequences under contract or property law, it is genuinely worth having an experienced advocate review the specific document, the nature of the consent given, and who else may have relied on the signature; the team at Aapka Legal Advice regularly advises clients on exactly this kind of overlapping criminal-civil exposure and can help you assess your actual risk rather than leaving you to guess. If the matter has already escalated to a police complaint or FIR involving allegations of forgery or cheating, it would be prudent to consult the Top Criminal Lawyers in India | Aapka Legal Advice, who can guide you through anticipatory bail considerations under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, and the broader defence strategy available to you. For clients seeking an additional, seasoned perspective before deciding how to proceed, Aapka Legal Advice also provides access to a panel of retired judges for consultation, whose bench experience can offer valuable insight into how a court is likely to weigh the question of consent in your particular fact pattern.

To summarise plainly: forgery, as defined under Section 336 of the BNS, fundamentally requires the making of a false document with fraudulent or dishonest intent, and genuine, clear consent to someone signing on your behalf generally negates that intent as between you and the signatory. However, that consent does not automatically protect against liability where the document is used to deceive a third party who was entitled to expect your personal signature, where the document falls into a category legally requiring personal execution, or where the document is subsequently used, under Section 338 of the BNS, to secure a benefit or mislead an authority. The safest path is always to formalise any delegation of signing authority in writing, and where a dispute has already arisen, to seek proper legal advice promptly rather than assuming that your consent alone resolves every angle of criminal exposure.