Punjab-Haryana High Court
Harpreet Kaur vs State Of Punjab on 24 March, 2014
Author: Rekha Mittal
Bench: Rekha Mittal
CRM-M- 11761 of 2013 -1-
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
Date of Decision:24.3.2014
1)CRM-M- 11761 of 2013
Harpreet Kaur
---Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab
---Respondent
2)CRM-M- 44066 of 2013
Ranjit Singh Kahlon
---Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab
---Respondent
Coram: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Rekha Mittal
***
Present:- Mr.K.B.Raheja, Advocate
for the petitioner ( in CRM-M-11761 of 2013)
Mr. Sunil Garg, Advocate
for the petitioner ( in CRM-M-44066 of 2013)
Mr. Amarinder Singh Klar, AAG, Punjab
for the respondent-State
***
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see
the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
REKHA MITTAL, J.
By way of this order, I shall dispose of CRM-M- 11761 of 2013 titled "Harpreet Kaur Vs. State of Punjab" and CRM-M-44066 of 2013 titled " Ranjit Singh Kahlon vs. State of Punjab", as these involve identical questions of law and facts for adjudication. Saini Paramjit Kaur 2014.03.27 17:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M- 11761 of 2013 -2-
The petitioners by way of the aforesaid petitions have challenged order dated 4.1.2013 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar dismissing the revision and order dated 5.10.2010 (Anneuxre P-1) passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jalandhar, vide which the petitioners are charged for committing offence punishable under Sections 420, 447, 467, 468, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (for short "IPC"). In the petition filed by Harpreet Kaur, notice of motion was issued limited to question of charge under Section 467 IPC. However, in the petition filed by Ranjit Singh Kahlon, notice of motion was issued qua charge under Sections 467 and 468 IPC.
The facts relevant for disposal of the present petitions are that as per allegations set out by the complainant namely Harbans Singh, he (Harbans Singh), along with his two brothers, purchased land measuring 03 kanals 17 marlas from Dilsher Bhatti and Gulsher Bhatti through their attorney Sunil Kumar out of land measuring 47 kanals 09 marlas with specific boundaries and took possession of the same. Harpreet Kaur and others, in connivance with Dilsher Bhatti and Gulsher Bhatti, prepared a forged and fabricated sale deed of the property purchased by him with an intention to cheat the complainant.
The cancellation report was submitted by the police, however, vide order dated 23.11.2006, the trial court summoned the accused to face trial for offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 447 IPC. The petitioners have been charged for committing offence under Sections 420, 447, 467, 468 and 120-B IPC by the learned trial court. The revision petition preferred by the petitioners against order dated 5.10.2010 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jalandhar, came to be dismissed by the Saini Paramjit Kaur 2014.03.27 17:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M- 11761 of 2013 -3- Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, vide order dated 4.1.2013, impugned in the present proceedings.
Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that even if the allegations raised by the complainant are accepted as correct on its face value, the same do not constitute offence of forgery defined under Section 463 IPC, therefore, no charge under Sections 467 and 468 IPC is made out against the petitioners. In support of his contention, he has relied upon judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India in Md. Ibrahim and others vs. State of Bihar and another 2009(4) R.C.R.(Criminal) 369.
Counsel for the State, on the contrary, has supported the orders passed by the Courts below with the submissions that at the stage of charge, the court is not required to enter into roving enquiry to find out if the allegations would ultimately result in conviction of the accused or otherwise. Another submission made by counsel is that charge can be framed even on the basis of strong suspicion. It is argued that keeping in view the allegations levelled by the complainant, the trial court has rightly charged the petitioners for committing offence under Sections 467 and 468 IPC as well.
I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the records. As per the facts gathered from the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, complainant Harbans Singh has alleged that the accused conspired with each other and some land has been sold to Ranjit Singh (petitioner herein) which was earlier sold to him and his brother and they tried to take forcible possession of their plot. It has been further averred that as per sale deed in his favour, specific portion with boundaries was sold to him and the sale deed in favour of Ranjit Singh- Saini Paramjit Kaur 2014.03.27 17:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M- 11761 of 2013 -4- revisionist also bears the same khasra number as that of in the sale deed in favour of the complainant. In the garb of the second sale deed in favour of Ranjit Singh, the accused intended to cheat the complainant and take possession of his plot. The sale deed executed in favour of complainant Harbans Singh by Sunil Kumar as an attorney of Dilsher Singh and Gursher Singh sons of Gudial Singh is Annexure P-4, and in favour of Ranjit Singh, petitioner by Harpreet Kaur (petitioner) as an attorney of Gurinder Singh Daler, is Annexure P-5. Harpreet Kaur Bhatti while executing the sale deed in favour of Ranjit Singh has claimed Gurinder Singh Daler to be owner of land, subject matter of the sale deed which was executed by her as an attorney of the owner. There is no allegation against Harpreet Kaur Bhatti that she impersonated for somebody else or for the complainant to execute the sale deed dated 19.2.2001 in favour of Ranjit Singh.
The term forgery used in Section 467 and 468 IPC is defined in Section 463 IPC. Section 463 IPC says "whoever makes any false document with intent to cause damage or injury to the public or to any person, or to support any claim or title, or to cause any person to part with property, or to enter into express or implied contract, or with intent to commit fraud or that the fraud may be committed, commits forgery".
Section 464 IPC defines 'making a false document' and a relevant extract from Section 464 IPC is quoted hereinunder:-
464. Making a false document.-- A person is said to make a false document or false electronic record-
First.- Who dishonestly or fraudulently-
(a) makes, signs, seals or executes a document or part of a document,
(b) makes or transmits any electronic record or part of any electronic record;Saini Paramjit Kaur 2014.03.27 17:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M- 11761 of 2013 -5-
(c) affixes any electronic signature on any electronic record;
(d) makes any mark denoting the execution of a document, or the authenticity of the electronic signature, with the intention of causing it to be believed that such document or part of a document, electronic record or electronic signature was made, signed, sealed, executed, transmitted or affixed by or by the authority of a person by whom or by whose authority he knows that it was not made, signed, sealed, executed or affixed; or Secondly.- Who, without lawful authority, dishonestly or fraudulently, by cancellation or otherwise, alters a document or any electronic record in any material part thereof, after it has been made or executed or affixed with electronic signature either by himself or by any other person, whether such person be living or dead at the time of such alteration; or Thirdly.- Who dishonestly or fraudulently causes any person to sign, seal, execute or alter a document or an electronic record or to affix his electronic signature on any electronic record, knowing that such person by reason of unsoundness of mind or intoxication cannot, or that by reason of deception practised upon him, he does not know the contents of the document or the nature of the alteration.
Explanation I.- A man' s signature of his own name may amount to forgery.
Explanation 2.- The making of a false document in the name of a fictitious person, intending it to be believed that the document was made by real person, or in the name of a deceased person, intending it to be believed that the document was made by the person in his lifetime, may amount to forgery."
A perusal and analysis of Section 464 IPC makes it apparent that a person is said to have made a false document, if (i) he made or executed a document claiming to be someone else or authorized by someone Saini Paramjit Kaur 2014.03.27 17:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M- 11761 of 2013 -6- else; or(ii) he altered or tampered a document; or (iii) he obtained a document by practicing deception, or from a person not in control of his senses. The sale deed executed by Harpreet Kaur as an attorney of Gurinder Singh Daler obviously does not fall under (ii) and (iii) categories of false documents. Now, it is to be seen whether claim of the complainant that execution of sale deed by Harpreet Kaur amounts to committing forgery of the document would bring the case under the first category. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Md. Ibrahim and others's case (supra) in para 12 of the judgment has held, which reads as follows:-
"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 bonafide 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 executed by, or by the authority of a person, by whom or by whose authority he knows that it was not made or executed. When a document is executed by a Saini Paramjit Kaur 2014.03.27 17:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M- 11761 of 2013 -7- 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."
Keeping in view the observations made by Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India, extracted hereinbefore, I find force in the contentions of the petitioners that execution of sale deed purporting to convey some property of which the vendor is alleged to be not the owner does not amount to execution of a false document as defined under Section 464 IPC. If what is executed is not a false document, there is no forgery. If there is no forgery, then Sections 467 and 468 IPC are not attracted.
For the reasons aforesaid, the petitions are allowed to the extent that the charge against the petitioners for offence under Sections 467 and 468 IPC is set aside. However, nothing stated in this order shall prejudice culpability of the accused for other offences.
(Rekha Mittal) Judge 24.03.2014 Paramjit Saini Paramjit Kaur 2014.03.27 17:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh