Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

4.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner claimed that he is only the bonafide purchaser, purchased the land from the vendor for valid and proper consideration and he is no way connected with forgery and fabrication of documents as alleged by the complainant. Insofar as the petitioner is concerned, he purchased the land admeasuring 2 acres comprised in S.No.405/1 situated at Palabathiraramapuram village, Uthumalai Taluk, Tirunelveli District and the same is registered as Document No.1046/4 on 19.07.2004 registered in the office of Sub Registrar, Uthumalai. Hence, he has left with no other efficacious alternative remedy, he is constrained to invoke the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the entire criminal proceedings as against him taken cognizance in C.C.No.540 of 2010 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Tirunelveli, on the following grounds:

17.When a document is executed by a person claiming a property which is not his, he is not claiming that he is someone else nor is he claiming that he is authorised by someone else. Therefore, execution of such document (purporting to convey some property of which he is not the owner) is not execution of a false document as defined under section 464 of the Code. If what is executed is not a false document, there is no forgery. If there is no forgery, then neither section 467 nor section 471 of the Code are attracted. ?

According to Mr. Das, making of a false document so as to support any claim over title would constitute forgery within the meaning of the said provision and as a document was created for the purpose of showing one- third share in the joint property by the appellants although they were not entitled to therefor, they must be held to have committed an offence.

19.Making of any false document, in view of the definition of `forgery' is the sine qua non therefor. What would amount to making of a false document is specified in Section 464 thereof. What is, therefore, necessary is to execute a document with the intention of causing it to be believed that such document inter alia was made by the authority of a person by whom or by whose authority he knows that it was not made.

13.It is seen from the above, the ingredients of any of the offence as alleged by the prosecution would not made against the petitioner. For the purpose of constituting an offence of cheating, the complainant is required to show that the accused had fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of making promise or representation. In the absence of such culpable intention, no offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code been made out against the petitioner. Insofar as the allegation of forgery, the petitioner admittedly did not commit any forgery on his purchase. While making of a false document so as to support any claim over title would constitute forgery. What would amount to making of a false document is specified in Section 464 of I.P.C., to execute a document with the intention of causing it to be believed that such document interalia was made by the authority of a person by whom or by whose authority he knows that it was not made.