Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

In this Writ Petition, a Writ of Certiorari is sought to quash the order of the VI Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad in Crl.M.P. No.3729 of 2011 in Cr. No.53 of 2011 dated 10.10.2011.

2. Facts, in brief, are that, on the basis of a complaint filed by the 1st respondent, Crime No.53 of 2011 was registered in CID Police Station on 25.08.2011. By his complaint letter/petition dated 25.08.2011, Sri M. Malla Reddy, DSP, CID, GOW, Hyderabad requested the Addl. DGP, CID, A.P., Hyderabad to order for necessary criminal action against Sri T. Sunil Reddy and others who had conspired together to commit the offence of forgery, using false documents as genuine etc., as per law. The said complaint letter of Sri M. Malla Reddy dated 25.08.2011 was the basis of FIR No.53 of 2011 dated 25.08.2011 for offences under Sections 471, 468 and 120-B I.P.C. Sri T. Sunil Reddy and two others, shown as accused in the said complaint, are alleged to have secured certified copies of registered documents by filing search applications in the names of third parties, forging their signatures with the ulterior motive of maligning a senior police officer; they had created a false representation in the name of a fictitious person i.e., one Sri Tejavath Ramulu Naik, organizing secretary of the All India Banjara Seva Sangham, Rangareddy District, and a false covering letter dated 22.04.2011 purported to have been written by Sri M.A. Khan, MP (Rajya Sabha), for enquiry into the matter alleged in the representation; Sri M.A. Khan had informed that no such letter was addressed by him at any point of time, and the signature did not belong to him; during the course of enquiry at the sub-registrar's offfices at Maheshwaram, Champapet and Medchal, it was revealed that one Lokesh, a document writer at Champapet SRO, had applied for certified copies, and had collected about 30 certified copies of registered documents; on examination, Sri D. Lokesh stated that he had obtained certified copies of registered documents at the instance of Sri N. Sharath Reddy, a childhood friend; upon enquiry Sri Sharath Reddy stated that he had acted on the instructions of his distant relative Sri T. Sunil Reddy who, in turn, revealed that, on the instructions of a Senior Officer, he had collected certified copies of the registered documents with the help of the said Lokesh and Sharath. On his being examined, Sri R. Ramavath Roop Singh stated that he did not lodge any such complaint against any of the officers, and there was no organizing secretary in the name of Tejavath Ramulu Naik; the Secretary, Gram Panchayat, Shamshabad informed in writing that no house bearing Door No.2-34/A is in existence in the village; these facts reveal that Sri T. Sunil Reddy, with a malafide intention, had collected certified copies of registered documents from the sub-registrar's offices at Maheswaram, Champapet and Medchal; he had also created a false representation in the name of Tejavath Ramulu Naik, organizing secretary of the All India Banjara Seva Samithi, and a false covering letter in the name of Sri M.A. Khan, MP (RS) by forging his signature on his letter head; the forged letter was forwarded to the Union Government; on careful observation it was visible to the naked eye that the alleged forged signature of Sri M.A. Khan, on the alleged covering letter, had a striking similarity with the original signature of Sri T. Sunil Reddy; the enquiry revealed a prima facie case of forgery, using false documents as genuine knowing it to be false, and conspiracy to do an illegal act; and true facts would come out during the course of regular investigation.

18. The Legislature, in its wisdom, has classified forgery into different categories, and has prescribed different punishments for such offences. While a severe punishment is prescribed for some forms of forgery, for others a lesser punishment is stipulated. The punishment prescribed for "forgery of the record of Court or of public registers" under Section 466 IPC, and "forgery for the purpose of cheating" under Section 468 IPC, is imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years. The punishment prescribed for "forgery of valuable Security, Will etc.", under Section 467 IPC, is imprisonment for life or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years. On the other hand, the punishment for "forgery" under Section 463 IPC and "using as genuine a forged document" under Section 471 IPC is imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, and for "forgery for the purpose of harming reputation" under Section 469 IPC the prescribed punishment is imprisonment which may extent to three years. While the Magistrate can exercise his power to tender pardon under Section 306 Cr.P.C. for "forgery of record of Court or of public register etc." under Section 466 IPC; for "forgery of valuable Security, Will etc.," under Section 467 IPC and "forgery for the purpose of cheating" under Section 468 IPC; he cannot, in view of Section 306(2)(b), exercise his power to tender pardon where the offence alleged is "forgery" under Section 463 IPC; "forgery for the purpose of harming reputation" under Section 469 IPC; or "for using as genuine a forged document" under Section 471 IPC.

21. The essential ingredients of Section 468 IPC are (i) that the accused committed forgery; and (ii) that he did so intending that the document forged shall be used for the purpose of "cheating". The ingredients of "cheating" under Section 415 IPC are (i) the accused had deceived another person; (ii) the accused intentionally induced the person so deceived to do something which he would not do, or omit to do if he were not so deceived; and (iii) such act or omission was such as to cause, or was likely to cause, damage or harm to the person deceived in body, mind, reputation or property. Any person who intentionally induces a person so deceived to do or omit to do anything, which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to "cheat". While the first part of the definition of "cheating" in Section 415 IPC relates to property, the second part does not necessarily relate to property. The second part speaks of intentional deception which must be intended not only to induce the person deceived to do or omit to do something, but also to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property. The intentional deception presupposes the existence of a dominant motive of the person making the inducement. Such inducement should have led the person deceived or induced to do or omit to do anything which he would not have done or omitted to do if he were not so deceived. The further requirement is that such act or omission should have caused damage or harm to body, mind, reputation or property. (G.V. Rao v. L.H.V. Prasad12; Kandaswami Gounder v. State of Tamil Nadu13). In so far as the second part of Section 415 is concerned, "property" is not involved at any stage. Here it is the doing of an act or omission to do an act by the deceived, as a result of intentional inducement by the accused, which is material. Such inducement should result in the doing of an act, or the omission to do an act, as a result of which the person deceived should have suffered or was likely to suffer damage or harm in body, mind, reputation or property. (Kandaswami Gounder13). While the Magistrate may not be justified in making a detailed analysis of the material placed before him, and record a conclusive finding whether or not an offence under Section 468 IPC has been established; he would, nonetheless, be required to satisfy himself that the material placed before him contains atleast a bald and bare allegation attracting the ingredients of "cheating" under Section 415 IPC in which event alone can the accused in Crime No.53 of 2011 or in C.C. No.555 of 2011 (renumbered as C.C. No.846 of 2011), including Sri T. Sunil Reddy (A-1) be said to have committed the offence of "forgery for the purpose of cheating" under Section 468 IPC.