Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

10. In 57 (1984) CUT 488 (Dinesh Kumar Jajodia and Anr. v. M/s. State Cooperative Marketing Federation Ltd., Bhubanesvvar) this Court viewed that the order framing a charge is an important and sacrosanct act. It should be framed after due and proper materials placed before the Court against the person, the settled position being that the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court is available to be exercised to prevent an abuse of process of the Court or for the ends of justice. In the case of Sri Harekrishna Mahatab and Anr. v. Republic of India and Anr. reported in 52 (1981) CLT 473, it is held that the continuance of the prosecution would in the facts of that case be a harassment and would not achieve any solatary public purpose. This Court taking note of the Supreme Court decision quoted above quashed the proceeding initiated against Sri Harekrishna Mahatab. Therefore, the actual exercise of jurisdiction would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each individual case. Let us now see whether in the present case there are prima facie materials on record for proceeding Under Section 465, IPC for forgery.

11. Section 465, IPC which deals with punishment for forgery runs as follows :

" 465. Whoever commits forgery shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years or with fine, or with both."
"Sec. 463, IPC says that whoever makes any false document or part of a docurpent with intent to cause damage or injury to the public or to any person, or to support any claim of title, or to cause any person to part with property, or to enter into any express or implied contract, or with intent to commit fraud or that fraud may be committed, commits forgery."