Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Rakesh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 12 April, 2017

                                1                MCrC 9593/2015


                     M.Cr.C. No. 9593/2015
12.04.2017
              Shri Brajesh Garg, learned counsel for the
petitioner.
              Shri R.S. Parmar, learned Public Prosecutor.
                           ORDER

This is a petition u/s. 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (hereinafter, for short, 'the Code') praying for quashment of first information report recorded in Crime No.126/2011 Police Station Sanyogitaganj, Indore for offences u/s. 420, 467, 468 and 471 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) against him and 20 other persons.

2. Precisely stated, the allegation against the accused persons is that 2 Acres of land comprising of Survey No.407/1669 situated at Jaora Compound, Indore was sold by accused No. 1 to 20, as mentioned in Para 7 of the first information report (copy-Annexure P/2) by way of registered sale-deed on 28.4.2006 in favour of Shubhamshri Housing Infrastructure for a consideration of Rs.1,50,00,000/- (One Crore Fifty Lakhs). The petitioner is the Director of Shubhamshri Housing Infrastructure. The allegation against the accused persons is that the land in question being Nazul land, the vendors had no right, title or interest to transfer the same and, therefore, have no right to execute a sale-deed in 2 MCrC 9593/2015 favour of the petitioner. The further allegation is that the petitioner in conspiracy with the remaining accused persons had cheated the State Government by getting the sale-deed executed in his favour and that the sale-deed executed by accused No. 1 to 20 in favour of the petitioner on 28.4.2006 is a forged document within the meaning of Section 464 of the IPC.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a bonafide purchaser for value. It is further submitted that the entire land of Jaora Compound, Indore was erstwhile held by Nawab, Jaora and the vendors claiming to be the legal representatives of Nawab, Jaora, had executed the sale-deed in favour of the petitioner. It is further submitted that at no stage of time, any dishonest or fraudulent inducement was made by the petitioner to any of the officers of the State Government, therefore, the question of cheating within the meaning of Section 415 of the IPC does not arise. It is further submitted that the sale-deed dated 28.4.2006 was executed by accused No.1 to 20 and they claimed to be owners of the land in question, therefore, it cannot be said that the sale-deed is a false document within the meaning of Section 464 of the IPC. Hence, the allegation with regard to commission of offence u/s. 467, 468 and 471 of the IPC is totally baseless.

4. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor has invited attention of this Court to the statement of various officers recorded during investigation. It is submitted that the land in question is a part of Nazul land and that, the accused persons by executing the sale-deed of the said land in favour of the petitioner have not only cheated the State Government, but have also indulged in making of false document.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6. 'Cheating' has been defined in Section 415 of the IPC, which runs as under :

"415. Cheating.- Whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to "cheat"."

7. To constitute 'cheating' within the meaning of Section 415 of the IPC, it must be shown that any person was fraudulently or dishonestly induced and was deceived to deliver any property to any person or to consent that any person shall retain any property or that such person 4 MCrC 9593/2015 intentionally induced the person so deceived to do or omit anything which he would not do or omit, if he was not so deceived. In the later case, it is further required to be proved that such such act or omission is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property.

8. The material collected during investigation, even prima facie, does not indicate that the petitioner or any person on his behalf at any point of time, fraudulently or dishonestly induced any officer of the Government. It further does not disclose that any officer of the Government was induced to deliver any property or to do or omit any act. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, offence u/s. 420 within the meaning of Section 415 of the IPC is not at all made out against the petitioner, even if all the allegations levelled against him in the first information report are accepted at their face value. Therefore, the allegation with regard to commission of offence u/s. 420 of the IPC appears to be totally unfounded and baseless.

9. As regards allegation concerning commission of offence u/s. 467, 468 and 471 of the IPC, it is required to be shown that any false document was prepared within the meaning of Section 464 of the IPC, which runs as under :-

"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;

(c) affixes any digital signature on any electronic record;

(d) makes any mark denoting the execution of a document or the authenticity of the digital signature, with the intention of causing it to be believed that such document or a part of document, electronic record or digital 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 an electronic record in any material part thereof, after it has been made, executed or affixed with digital signature either by himself or by any other person, whether such person be living or dead at the time of such alternation; 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 digital signature on any electronic record knowing that such person by reason of unsoundness of mind or intoxication cannot, or that by reason 6 MCrC 9593/2015 of deception practised upon him, he does not know the contents of the document or electronic record or the nature of the alteration.

Explanation 1 - 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 a 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.

[Note: The words `digital signature' wherever it occurs were substituted by the words `electronic signature' by Amendment Act 10 of 2009].

10. The ambit, scope and applicability of Section 464 of the IPC was considered by the apex Court in the celebrated case of Mohd. Ibrahim vs. State of Bihar, (2009) 8 SCC 751, relevant paragraphs of the said judgment are as under :-

"10. Section 467 (in so far as it is relevant to this case) provides that whoever forges a document which purports to be a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment for life or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years and shall also be liable to fine. Section 471, relevant to our purpose, provides that whoever fraudulently or dishonestly uses as genuine any document which he knows or has reason to believe to be a forged document, shall be punished in 7 MCrC 9593/2015 the same manner as if he had forged such document.

11. Section 470 defines a forged document as a false document made by forgery. The term "forgery" used in these two sections is defined in section 463. Whoever makes any false documents 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.

12. Section 464 ....................................."

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 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 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 practicing deception, or from a person not in control of his senses."

11. In the instant case, even if we accept all the allegations levelled against the petitioner in the charge-sheet, it cannot be said that a false document within the meaning of Section 464 of the IPC was made by the petitioner. Therefore, the allegation with regard to commission of offence u/s. 467, 468 and 471 is also found to be totally baseless.

12. Having regard to the aforesaid discussion and analysis, it is clear that even if we accept all the allegations made against the petitioner, offence u/s. 420, 467, 468 and 9 MCrC 9593/2015 471 of the IPC are not made out, even prima facie, against the petitioner. Therefore, the prayer for quashment of first information report and all consequent proceedings deserves to be allowed in the light of law laid down by apex Court in State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal : AIR 1992 SC 604.

13. Accordingly, this petition is hereby allowed and the first information report recorded in Crime No.126/2011 Police Station Sanyogitaganj, Indore and all consequent proceedings thereto qua the petitioner, are hereby quashed.

Ordered accordingly.

( VED PRAKASH SHARMA ) JUDGE Alok/-