Document Fragment View
Matching Fragments
misled as per the petitioner to believe that encroachment was removed, whereas, it existed on the spot. The FIR was lodged for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of IPC, however, none of these offences would of be applicable because it is not the case that forgery within the meaning of Sections 463 and 464 of IPC were committed. There rt is a wide distinction between a document, whose contents are false and a document, which is false. A document whose contents are false does not fall within the purview of Sections 463 and 464 of IPC. It was laid down in Bandekar Bros. (P) Ltd. v. Prasad Vassudev Keni, (2020) 20 SCC 1 : (2022) 1 SCC (Cri) 626: 2020 SCC OnLine SC 707, that making false debit notes to claim the amount mentioned in them will not amount to forgery as is understood in law. It was observed:
"50. Section 463 IPC speaks of "forgery" as being the making of a "false document" or "false electronic record", or a part thereof, to do the various things that are stated in that section. Unless a person is said to make a false document or electronic record, Section 463 does not get attracted at all. The making of a "false document" is then dealt with in Section 464 IPC. On the facts of the present case, we are not concerned with the categories of false documents identified under the heads "Secondly" and "Thirdly" of Section 464. Shri Mishra states that the making of the debit notes by the respondents in order to falsely claim amounts owing to them would fall within the .
56. It is thus clear that even if we are to put aside all the averments made in the two complaints (which attract the provisions of Sections 191 and 192 of the Penal Code), and were to concentrate only on the debit notes that are said to have been "created" by the respondents, it is clear that the debit notes were not "false documents" under Section 464 IPC, inasmuch they had not been made with the intention of causing it to be believed that they were made by or under the authority of some other person. Since this basic ingredient of forgery itself is not made out, none of the sections that are sought to be relied upon in Chapter XVIII IPC can thus be said to be even prima facie attracted in the facts of this case."