Madhya Pradesh High Court
Laljiram vs Amribai on 6 April, 2026
Author: Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar
Bench: Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:9059
1 MCRC-22878-2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJEEV S KALGAONKAR
ON THE 6 th OF APRIL, 2026
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 22878 of 2018
LALJIRAM
Versus
AMRIBAI AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Nitin Singh Bhati - Advocate for the petitioner.
ShriNilesh Dave- Advocate for the respondents.
ORDER
This petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.is filed assailing the order dated 11.05.2018 passed in Cr.R. No. 87/2017 by the Sessions Judge, Rajgarh(Biaora) whereby the order dated 08.08.2017 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Khilchipur Distt. Rajgarh in Cr. Case No. 0/2017 was partially modified and the trial Court was directed to take the cognizance u/S. 420 of IPC against the respondents. The learned Judicial Magistrate First Class had declined to take cognizance against the respondents of offence punishable u/Ss. 420, 467, 468, 406, 120, 471 r/W 34 of IPC on complaint of petitioner - Laljiram vide order dated 08.08.2017.
2. The exposition of facts, giving rise to the present petition, is as under:
A. The petitioner - Laljiram filed a Civil Suit which was decided in his favour by the Civil Judge, Khilchipurvide judgment dated 30.11.2016 in Civil Suit No. 15A/2016 declaring the petitioner to be the owner of the property and permanent injunction was also granted in favour of the Signature Not Verified Signed by: SEHAR HASEEN Signing time: 07-04-2026 15:16:51 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:9059 2 MCRC-22878-2018 petitioner. Ambri Bai in association with Banshilal had subsequently executed sale deeds on 02.05.2017 and 01.06.2017 comprising same property in favor of her son, Bansilal.Respondents- Shrilal and Onkar, despite knowledge about passing of judgment in favour of Laljiram,signed the said sale deed as witness.
B. The petitioner- Laljiram submitted a written complaint on 28.06.2017 to the SHO, Outpost Papdel, P.S. Bhojpur &Rajgarh for offence punishable u/Ss 420, 467, 468, 406, 120-B, 471 and 34 of IPC inter-alia alleging fraudulent transaction between Ambri Bai, Bansilal, Shrilal and Onkar.
C. Laljiram filed private complaint before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Khilchipur, Distt. Rajgarh.The statement of Laljiram was recorded u/S. 200 of Cr.P.C. Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class dismissed the complaint holding that the dispute is civil in nature. Laljiram preferred criminal revision before the Court of Sessions, Distt. Rajgarh. Learned Sessions Judge, Rajgarh set aside the impugned order allowing the criminal revision and directed further proceeding on the complaint vide order dated 11.02.2018.
3. The impugned order dated 11.02.2018 is assailed on the following grounds:
i. The trial Court ignored the material facts and circumstances available on record.
ii. The Revisional Court i.e.the learned Sessions Judge, Distt. Rajgarh committed error in rejecting the contention for registration of complaint for offences punishable u/S 467, 468, 406 and 471 of IPC, as these offences are also made out from the material available on record.Signature Not Verified Signed by: SEHAR HASEEN Signing time: 07-04-2026 15:16:51
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:9059 3 MCRC-22878-2018 iii. Both the Courts did not consider that the respondents/accused had intentionally with malafide created fake document i.e. the sale deed after judgment of Civil Court to avoid the effect of judgment of Civil Court.
On these grounds, it is prayed that the order passed by the Revisional Court be set aside and trial Court be directed to charge respondents for offence punishable u/Ss 420, 467, 468, 406, 120-B, 471 and 34 of IPC.
4. Heard, learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record.
5 . The trial Court considered the statement of Laljiram recorded u/S 200 of Cr.P.C. and the documents to conclude that whether the sale deed is ' void ab initio'. It does not extinguish or create any title in favour of anyone. Rather, the Magistrate relying on the law laid down in the case of Mohd. Ibrahim v. State of Bihar, reported in (2009) 8 SCC 751 concluded that prima-facie the offence punishable u/Ss. 420, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC is not made out as the sale deed was not executed by impersonating Ambri Bai. Further, in absence of any entrustment, the offence punishable u/S 406 of IPC is also not made out. The dispute is civil in nature.
6. Learned Sessions Court in para 8 and 9 of the impugned order considered the validity and propriety of the order of learned Magistrate and concluded that although this sale deed cannot be said to be forged document. The offence of cheating is prima-facie made out against the respondent Ambri Bai, Shrilal and Onkar and directed the trial Court to proceed with the complaint accordingly.
7. The Supreme Court in case of Mohd. Ibrahim (supra) observed as under-
13. The condition precedent for an offence under Sections 467 and 471 is forgery. The condition precedent for forgery is making a false document (or false electronic Signature Not Verified Signed by: SEHAR HASEEN Signing time: 07-04-2026 15:16:51 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:9059 4 MCRC-22878-2018 record or part thereof). This case does not relate to any false electronic record. Therefore, the question is whether the first accused, in executing and registering the two sale deeds purporting to sell a property (even if it is assumed that it did not belong to him), can be said to have made and executed false documents, in collusion with the other accused.
14. An analysis of Section 464 of the Penal Code shows that it divides false documents into three categories:
1. The first is where a person dishonestly or fraudulently makes or executes a document with the intention of causing it to be believed that such document was made or executed by some other person, or by the authority of some other person, by whom or by whose authority he knows it was not made or executed.
2. The second is where a person dishonestly or fraudulently, by cancellation or otherwise, alters a document in any material part, without lawful authority, after it has been made or executed by either himself or any other person.
3. The third is where a person dishonestly or fraudulently causes any person to sign, execute or alter a document knowing that such person could not by reason of (a) unsoundness of mind; or (b) intoxication; or (c) deception practised upon him, know the contents of the document or the nature of the alteration.
In short, a person is said to have made a "false document", if (i) he made or executed a document claiming to be someone else or authorised by someone else; or (ii) he altered or tampered a document; or ( iii) he obtained a document by practising deception, or from a person not in control of his senses.
15. The sale deeds executed by the first appellant, clearly and obviously do not fall under the second and third categories of "false documents". It therefore remains to be seen whether the claim of the complainant that the execution of sale deeds by the first accused, who was in no way connected with the land, amounted to committing forgery of the documents with the intention of taking possession of the complainant's land (and that Accused 2 to 5 as the purchaser, witness, scribe and stamp vendor, colluded with the first accused in execution and registration of the said sale deeds) would bring the case under the first category.
16. There is a fundamental difference between a person executing a sale deed claiming that the property conveyed is his property, and a person executing a sale deed by impersonating the owner or falsely claiming to be authorised or empowered by the owner, to execute the deed on owner's behalf. When a person executes a document conveying a property describing it as his, there are two possibilities. The first is that he bona fide believes that the property actually belongs to him. The second is that he may be dishonestly or fraudulently claiming it to be his even though he knows that it is not his property. But to fall under first category of "false documents", it is not sufficient that a document has been made or executed dishonestly or fraudulently. There is a further requirement that it should have been made with the intention of causing it to be believed that such document was made or Signature Not Verified Signed by: SEHAR HASEEN Signing time: 07-04-2026 15:16:51 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:9059 5 MCRC-22878-2018 executed by, or by the authority of a person, by whom or by whose authority he knows that it was not made or executed.
17. When a document is executed by a person claiming a property which is not his, he is not claiming that he is someone else nor is he claiming that he is authorised by someone else. Therefore, execution of such document (purporting to convey some property of which he is not the owner) is not execution of a false document as defined under Section 464 of the Code. If what is executed is not a false document, there is no forgery. If there is no forgery, then neither Section 467 nor Section 471 of the Code are attracted.
A clarification
23. When we say that execution of a sale deed by a person, purporting to convey a property which is not his, as his property, is not making a false document and therefore not forgery, we should not be understood as holding that such an act can never be a criminal offence. If a person sells a property knowing that it does not belong to him, and thereby defrauds the person who purchased the property, the person defrauded, that is, the purchaser, may complain that the vendor committed the fraudulent act of cheating. But a third party who is not the purchaser under the deed may not be able to make such complaint.
8. In case of Sheila Sebastian v. R. Jawaharaj , reported in (2018) 7 SCC 581, it was held that-
24. In Mir Nagvi Askari v. CBI, (2009) 15 SCC 643, this Court, after analysing the facts of that case, came to observe as follows:
"164. A person is said to make a false document or record if he satisfies one of the three conditions as noticed hereinbefore and provided for under the said section. The first condition being that the document has been falsified with the intention of causing it to be believed that such document has been made by a person, by whom the person falsifying the document knows that it was not made. Clearly the documents in question in the present case, even if it be assumed to have been made dishonestly or fraudulently, had not been made with the intention of causing it to be believed that they were made by or under the authority of someone else. The second criteria of the section deals with a case where a person without lawful authority alters a document after it has been made. There has been no allegation of alteration of the voucher in question after they have been made. Therefore, in our opinion the second criteria of the said section is also not applicable to the present case. The third and final condition of Section 464 deals with a document, signed by a person who due to his mental capacity does not know the contents of the documents which were made i.e. because of intoxication or unsoundness of mind, etc. Such is also not the case before us. Indisputably therefore the accused before us could not have been convicted with the making of a false document."
25. Keeping in view the strict interpretation of penal statute i.e. referring to rule of Signature Not Verified Signed by: SEHAR HASEEN Signing time: 07-04-2026 15:16:51 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:9059 6 MCRC-22878-2018 interpretation wherein natural inferences are preferred, we observe that a charge of forgery cannot be imposed on a person who is not the maker of the same. As held in plethora of cases, making of a document is different than causing it to be made. As Explanation 2 to Section 464 further clarifies that, for constituting an offence under Section 464 it is imperative that a false document is made and the accused person is the maker of the same, otherwise the accused person is not liable for the offence of forgery.
26. The definition of "false document" is a part of the definition of "forgery". Both must be read together. "Forgery" and "fraud" are essentially matters of evidence which could be proved as a fact by direct evidence or by inferences drawn from proved facts. In the case in hand, there is no finding recorded by the trial court that the respondents have made any false document or part of the document/record to execute mortgage deed under the guise of that "false document". Hence, neither Respondent 1 nor Respondent 2 can be held as makers of the forged documents. It is the imposter who can be said to have made the false document by committing forgery. In such an event the trial court as well as the appellate court misguided themselves by convicting the accused. Therefore, the High Court has rightly acquitted the accused based on the settled legal position and we find no reason to interfere with the same.
9. The material on record is examined in the light of aforestated propositions of law.
10. Ambri Bai and Bansilal were well aware of the judgment dated 30.11.2016 passed in Civil Suit No. 15A/2016 by learned Civil Judge, Khilchipur despite knowledge of this adverse judgment, Ambri Bai executed sale deed in favour of her son Banshilal to cause wrongful loss to the complainant - Laljiram by transferring the property which was the subject matter of the civil suit. Learned Sessions Judge opined that the offence punishable u/S 420 of IPC is prima-face made out. However, both the Courts unanimously concluded that the offence punishable u/Ss406, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of IPC is not made out in view of law laid down in the case of Mohd. Ibrahim(supra).
11 . Ambri Bai had executed sale deed in favour of her son Banshilal, in her name and under her signature. There is no impersonation, tempering or alteration Signature Not Verified Signed by: SEHAR HASEEN Signing time: 07-04-2026 15:16:51 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:9059 7 MCRC-22878-2018 in execution of sale deed. Therefore, the necessary ingredients to constitute "making of false document" is not made out in view of law laid down in cases of Mohd. Ibrahim and Sheila Sebastian (supra).
12. In view of above discussion, this Court is of considered opinion that the impugned order does not suffer from any manifest impropriety or legal infirmity. No case is made out for interference in exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
13. Consequently, the petition is dismissed.
(SANJEEV S KALGAONKAR) JUDGE sh Signature Not Verified Signed by: SEHAR HASEEN Signing time: 07-04-2026 15:16:51