Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

A reading of the entire allegations made in the FIR do not constitute an offence under Section 420 of IPC, since there was no deception on the part of the petitioner and more particularly since it is not the case of the second respondent that there was a conspiracy between the original owner of the property namely Narayanasamy Iyer and the petitioner in grabbing the land belonging to the second respondent. Therefore, the learned Senior Counsel submitted that offence under Section 420 has not been made out. No offence under Sections 465, 468, 471 has been made out, since it is not the case of the second respondent that the document namely sale deed executed in favour of the petitioner was by way of an impersonation or by committing forgery and therefore, the sale deed dated 12.06.2013 cannot be called as a false document, in order to attract the above said provisions and therefore no offence has been made out.

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.

15. The sale deeds executed by 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 complainant's land (and that accused 2 to 5 as the purchaser, witness, scribe and stamp vendor colluded with first accused in execution and registration of the said sale deeds) would bring the case under the first category.

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.

14.The above said judgment squarely applies to this case. This is also a case which does not obviously fall under the second and third categories of ?false documents?. Therefore, the only thing which remains to be seen is whether showing false boundaries in the sale deed of the petitioner will amount to committing forgery of the document with an intention to take possession of the second respondent's property. Para 16 of the judgment of the Supreme Court extracted herein above is the direct answer for the said question.