Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

2024.08.21 16:05:07 +0530 evidence or by inferences drawn from proved facts. In the case in hand, there is no finding recorded by the trial court that the respondents have made any false document or part of the document/record to execute mortgage deed under the guise of that "false document".

Hence, neither Respondent 1 nor Respondent 2 can be held as makers of the forged documents. It is the imposter who can be said to have made the false document by committing forgery. In such an event the trial court as well as the appellate court misguided themselves by convicting the accused. Therefore, the High Court has rightly acquitted the accused based on the settled legal position and we find no reason to interfere with the same." Thus, since the Revisionist is not the author/maker of the allegedly forged signatures of Mrs. Swapna Sundari, she cannot be charged under Section 464, IPC.

2024.08.21 16:05:48 +0530 and dishonestly such that either wrongful loss or wrongful gain is caused. In Ram Narayan Popli v. CBI (2003) 3 SCC 641 it was observed as follows : "374. In order to constitute an offence of forgery the documents must be made dishonestly or fraudulently. But dishonest or fraudulent are not tautological.... In order to be fraudulent, there must be some advantage on the one side with a corresponding loss on the other. Every forgery postulates a false document either in whole or in part, however small."
2024.08.21 16:07:00 +0530

25. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances for the accused to be charged for the offences punishable U/s 420/468/471 IPC r/w U/s 511 IPC and Section 465 IPC it was required for the prosecution to show that the alleged documents were forged for the purpose of cheating by accused/revisionist Kavita Gupta. However, in the present matter as per FSL report which has been filed by the IO as supplementary chargesheet, it has been opined that "it could not be possible to express any opinion regarding their common authorship or otherwise on the basis of material at hand" . As per record, IO had provided around 202 documents for examination to the FSL containing questions as well as admitted signatures and it has been opined that the authorship of the same could not be ascertained. In view of the aforesaid report, and upon seeing the contents of the complaint, the alleged forgery of the documents cannot be fixed upon the revisionist/accused Kavita Gupta. More so, in the present matter it is the allegation of the complainant herself that she believed that the documents purportedly furnished before the MCD were prepared by accused Kavita Gupta with the intention to cheat the complainant. However, in the present matter, the alleged cheating, by using the alleged forged documents never culminated since the aforesaid application before the MCD moved by accused Kavita Gupta was rejected by the MCD itself and same was never pursued by accused Kavita Gupta and therefore, the same cannot be treated to be moved with the intention to dishonestly cause wrongful loss to the complainant. Further, it is the case of the complainant herself that upon rejection of the application by the MCD, the same was not CR No.220/2024 Kavita Gupta Vs. State & Anr. FIR No.11/2009 PS Lajpat Nagar Page No. 28 of 30 SHEETAL CHAUDHARY Date:

2024.08.21 16:07:04 +0530 pursued by accused Kavita Gupta. It further cannot be lost sight that it is only the assumption of the complainant that the accused Kavita Gupta by forging documents had attempted to cheat the complainant and had done so with the dishonest intention. It is stated in the chargesheet that upon rejection of the application by the MCD which was never pursued by the accused Kavita Gupta, there was no construction on the third floor of the said property which could have caused wrongful loss to the complainant. It is also the case of the prosecution that the alleged employee Janardhan of co-accused MD Budhiraja (since deceased) was never interrogated and the tout namely Kapoor could not be apprehended who may have committed the offence of forgery and had filed the application with the MCD which was eventually rejected by MCD. The application before MCD was dismissed, and therefore, there was no wrongful gain to accused Kavita Gupta which is alleged by the prosecution. Further, in the alleged documents the signature of the complainant were never forged and infact it is only the signature of one of the owner namely Ms. Swapanasundari were allegedly forged, and therefore, no offence of forgery of documents of complainant Ms. Shiraz Patodia was committed against her. Cheating by false representation in respect of a future event must be proved by showing that the representation was false to the knowledge of the accused at the time it was made.