Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

14.3. In this regard, the learned Senior Counsel would contend that Section 465 IPC provides for punishment for the commission of an offence of forgery. While Section 466 deals with forgery of a public register kept by a public servant and Section 469 deals with commission of forgery for the purpose of harming the reputation of any person. Therefore, in order to invoke Sections 465, 466 and 469, an offence of forgery as defined under Section 463, must have been committed by the accused. Further, there is no making of a false document under Section 464 IPC which is sine qua non for the offence of forgery.

28. Keeping the submissions in mind and the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, let us proceed to consider the case before us. The prayer of the petitioners in this Criminal Original Petitions is to quash the charge sheet filed against them under Sections 167, 465, 466, 469 r/w.34 IPC.

29. It is also useful to refer to Sections 465, 466 & 469 IPC for the purpose of considering the prayer of the petitioner:-

Section 465 IPC provides for punishment for the commission of an offence of forgery. While Section 466 deals with forgery of a public register kept by a public servant, Section 469 deals with commission of forgery for the purpose of harming the reputation of any person. Therefore, in order to invoke Sections 465, 466 & 469, an offence of forgery, as defined under Section 463 must have been committed, by the accused. Hence, in order to appreciate as to whether the petitioners can be said to have committed an offence of forgery, it is relevant to extract Sections 463, 465, 466, 469 and 167 IPC hereunder:

30. From a plain reading of the provision of Section 463, it could be seen that the following ingredients are required to be satisfied for the purpose of bringing home the charge of forgery.

(i) The accused should have created a false document.

(ii) It should be made with an intention to cause damage or injury to the public or to any person.

31. Unless a false document is said to have been created as defined under Section 464 of IPC, no offences of forgery as defined under Section 463 is said to have been committed and consequently, no offence under Sections 465, 466 & 469 IPC would be attracted. Section 464 provides that "a person is said to make a false document who dishonestly or fraudulently makes, signs, seals or executes a document or a part of a document". Thus, making of a false document requires the following:-

Gaining wrongfully, losing wrongfully.?A person is said to gain wrongfully when such person retains wrongfully, as well as when such person acquires wrongfully. A person is said to lose wrongfully when such person is wrongfully kept out of any property, as well as when such person is wrongfully deprived of property."

34. Therefore, the entire concept of wrongful gain or wrongful loss and consequently the terms "dishonesty" or "fraudulently" relate only to property and in fine, in the absence of any unlawful gain or loss of property, the actus rea of the accused cannot be labelled to be dishonest and in consequence, if no property is involved, there is no question of making of a false document under Section 464 IPC and the quick consequence of the same is that no forgery is said to have been committed unless the end result of the alleged offensive act results in either ?unlawful gain? or ?loss of property?. In the present case, it is the admitted case of the prosecution that the charge does not relate to any unlawful gain or loss of property and therefore, there is no making of a false document as defined under Section 464 IPC which is sine qua non to bring an act under the case of forgery.