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.

Therefore, on this factual position also, no ground is made out to punish the petitioners/appellants under Section 167 I.P.C. and prayed for quashing the charges pending against the appellants.

15. Submissions made by the learned Counsel for the second respondent / defacto complainant in respect of Crl.O.P.(MD).Nos.4676 of 2012 and 15617 of 2011:

15.1. The learned Counsel appearing for the second respondent / defacto complainant, viz., Ramesh Babu, who is the Writ Petitioner in W.P(MD).No.1919 of 2009 would submit that based on the complaint given by the second respondent, the Inspector of Police, Thanjavur Medical College Hospital Police Station, registered a case in Crime No.311 of 2009 for the offences under Sections 465, 466 and 469 IPC as against the Head of the Department, namely, Dr.Muthukumaran. After registration of FIR, the investigation was taken up and statements from witnesses were recorded by the Investigating Officer. The Chief Anesthetist, namely, Dr.Thenmozhi was examined as a witness on 23.6.2010 and on her statement; it came to the light that on the instruction of the Head of the Department, she only made star mark in the attendance register. So, she was also made as an accused. Since on the date of examination of Dr.Thenmozhi, she was not an accused, her statement is admissible under Section 21 of the Indian Evidence Act. The above statement will come under the definition "admission" as defined under Section 17 of the Indian Evidence Act. The investigation was thereafter transferred to the Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Thanjavur. The transferee Inspector of Police, after completing the investigation, has filed a positive final report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Thanjavur. The learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Thanjavur had taken cognizance of the final report submitted by the 1st Respondent herein under section 190 of Cr.P.C. The 1st Respondent has filed a positive final report as against two accused for the offences under Sections 465, 466, 469 and 167 r/w.34 IPC.

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:-