Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

7.3 The non-compoundable offences involved in the present case include Section 468 and 471 of the IPC. Section 468 prescribes punishment for the offence of forgery of a document for the purpose of cheating defined under Section 463 of the IPC and the punishment can extend to imprisonment for a period of seven years and is also inclusive of fine. Under Section 471, the use of a forged document would be punishable in the same manner as forgery of a document under Section 465 is punishable. The definition of forgery in terms of Sections 463 and 464 IPC is wide enough to include the making of a false document by altering it dishonestly. Some of the illustrations under Section 464 IPC as well as those under Explanations 1 and 2 thereof are similar to the present three cases. However, that in any event would be the subject matter of trial and no definite opinion can be expressed at this stage. What is relevant however is that these offences feature in Chapter XVIII of the IPC titled "Offences relating to documents and property marks". The fact that these offences have been separately classified and have been made cognizable indicates the intent of the legislature. Significantly, offences relating to the counterfeiting of bank notes and currency notes are included in this Chapter. The very nature of these offences indicates that the legislature intended to treat them as a separate class. These offences cannot be viewed as offences relating only to individuals but as having an impact on society as well. There are therefore good public policy considerations in retaining these offences as cognizable and non-compoundable. These public policy considerations have to be kept in mind when considering a prayer for quashing of proceedings involving such offences.

7.9 A further expansion of the power to quash proceedings was recently witnessed in Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab a decision that has been heavily relied upon by the Petitioners. A reading of the said judgment of the Supreme Court would show that the offences were under Section 406/409/418/379 and 506 read with 34 IPC. It did not involve the offence of forgery. It was in that context that the Court, in para 5, observed that "the dispute was purely a personal one between two contesting parties and that it arose out of extensive business dealings between them and that there was absolutely no public policy involved in the nature of the allegations made against the accused." It was in the above context that it was stated "where the question involved is of a purely personal nature, the Court should ordinarily accept the terms of the compromise even in criminal proceedings as keeping the matter alive with no possibility of a result in favour of the prosecution is a luxury which the Courts, grossly overburdened as they are, cannot afford and that the time so saved can be utilized in deciding more effective and meaningful litigation. This is a common sense approach to the matter based on ground realities and bereft of the technicalities of the law." Clearly therefore the 'common sense' approach requires the Court to ask if there is any possibility of the offence being at all proved if the matter goes to trial.

10.3 The highlighted portions in Duncan Agro reveal the factors that weighed with the Court in concurring with the High Court. These were that the dispute was essentially of a civil nature, that the offence at the highest was of cheating which was compoundable and that there was delay. In Duncan Agro there was no evidence of an independent nature, like an FSL report, which the prosecution was relying upon to prove the commission of the offence of forgery under Sections 468 and 471 IPC. The prosecution there appears to have based its case on the fact that a Bank official of a lower rank had purportedly signed on behalf of the officer of a higher rank although that he was not authorised to do so. There is no discussion of this aspect by the Supreme Court. Nothing in Duncan Agro can be understood as an approval of the Supreme Court for the quashing of the criminal proceedings for the offences under Sections 468 and 471 IPC especially where there is forensic evidence in support of such offences as is the case here.

16. It was urged that the offence under Sections 468 IPC is forgery for the purpose of cheating and if the offence of cheating under Section 420 IPC is compoundable, then the case under Sections 468 IPC obviously cannot survive. The cases on hand involve not only the offence of cheating but the offences under Sections 468 and 471 IPC as well. The power under Section 320 CrPC is an enabling one. There is no compulsion in such cases for the Court to compound the offences. It may well refuse to exercise the discretion to permit compounding where it finds that the offence is of cheating coupled with forgery.