Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: Forgery of document in State vs Mukhtyar Singh on 3 February, 2025Matching Fragments
7. Per contra, Ld. Counsel for accused persons has stated that there is no legally sustainable evidence against the accused persons and that the accused persons have been falsely implicated by the police officials and forgery of documents of property in question have not been proved to have been used at any public place. The signatures of Accused Sanjay and Ranjeet were not present upon any of the documents in question, thus, there is no evidence against them. The prosecution has not verified the signatures of Ishwar Singh on the Praman Patra issued to Sh. Radhey Shyam and as such, the subsequent chain of documents executed in favour of accused persons cannot be said to be forged. It is further argued that due to the lacunae and incoherency in the story of the prosecution, the accused persons be given the benefit of doubt and are therefore, entitled to be acquitted.
Explanation 2 The making of a false document in the name of a fictitious person, intending it to be believed that the document was made by a real person, or in the name of a deceased person, intending it to be believed that the document was made by the person in his lifetime, may amount to forgery.
29. From the above, it is observed that the condition precedent for an offence under sections 468 and 471 is forgery. The condition precedent for forgery is making a false document (or false electronic record or part thereof). This case does not relate to any false electronic record. Therefore, the question is whether the accused persons, in executing and registering the sale documents purporting to sell a property E 942 B (even if it is assumed that it did not belong to them), can be said to have made and executed false documents, in collusion with the each other.
Section 471 IPC provides that whoever fraudulently or dishonestly uses as genuine any document which he knows or has reason to believe to be a forged document, shall be punished in the same manner as if he had forged such document.
Section 470 IPC defines a forged document as a false document made by forgery.
Therefore, the condition precedent for an offence U/S 468/471 IPC is "forgery" and condition precedent for forgery is making a "false documents"
receipt, Mukhtyar Singh had transferred the property E942B in favour of Tika Ram Goel who had the locus of challenging the execution of chain of documents but nothing was done by Tika Ram Goel. In the same way, the property was transferred by Tika Ram in favour of Raj Singh through property documents dt. 16.03.1995 and from Raj Singh to Surender Dabas through property documents dated 14.02.2011 and none of them have agitated the matter and made any complaint of dishonest or false representation and execution of forged documents. None of the successive purchasers of the plot in question have raised the issue of preparation of false documents. Therefore, the complainant/PW1 has no locus standi to project the said chain of documents as preparation of false documents as no forgery and cheating as observed above are found to be attracted qua the complainant. The complainant can not be said to the aggrieved regarding the allegation U/S 420/468/471 IPC because he is not the purchaser of plot E 942B.