Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3. Being aggrieved by the said proceeding Mr. Das Gupta learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that on perusal of the charge sheet it is evident that there is no reflection as to any report being obtained from an expert to substantiate the charge of forgery and in absence of such report offences under section 467/468/471 IPC is not maintainable. Under the provisions of 463 IPC, which defines forgery makes it clear that only one who makes false document can be held liable for offence of forgery. Therefore, the person who is not the maker of false document in question cannot be said to have committed forgery and in this context he relied upon the Judgement of Sheila Sebastian Vs. Jawaharaj and another reported in (2018) 7 SCC 581.

20. Needless to say that to constitute an offence of forgery using a forged document as genuine for the purpose of cheating the prosecution is required to establish that particular accused i.e. the petitioner herein has committed forgery by preparation of a forged documents in the manner provided in section 463 and 464 IPC and that such forgery is to be made for the purpose of cheating and in order to constitute offence under section 471 the prosecution has to show that the accused fraudulently and dishonestly used such document knowing it to be forged one. Here in the petition of complaint the complainant has stated that all the accused persons have forged the signature of the complainant in the letter dated 20.12.2018. Form the materials in the case diary and also from the written complaint I do not find any material that the instant petitioner Smt. Kamala Devi Goel has prepared the allegedly forged letter. Infact during investigation, maker of alleged false document was not found nor any investigation was done to that extent. The available document in the case diary and the complaint does not reveal any relationship between the alleged wrongdoer and the present petitioner. It is well settled that the charge of forgery cannot be imposed or sustained against a person against whom prima facie allegation of making false letter in question has not been established. The essential element of an offence under Section 464 of the IPC is that the accused must make the document with the intent of making it to be believed that it was signed by or under the authority of someone else while he knows that it was not so made 2025:CHC-AS:996 or authorised to make by that person. In other words to bring the offence within the four corners of the sections, the letter dated 20.12.2018 must be shown to have created by the present petitioner with a view to making it appear that it was made by some person other than the person who the petitioner knows did not make it. The materials available during investigation does not suggest that the prosecution could even prima facie establish that the alleged letter dated 20.12.2018 was procured by the petitioner or she procured the signature of the complainant.