Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

13. Under these circumstances, petitioners have made false charges against respondent No. 2 to the SHO P.S.Greater Kailash-I and by getting a false F.I.R. registered against him has committed offence under Section 211 IPC and by making false and forged document dated August 23, 2002 and by making material alteration in the medical certificate submitted by respondent No. 2 without lawful authority, have committed offences Under Section 463/464/465/469/471 IPC.

14. In the petition seeking quashing of the summoning order as well as proceedings arising of the complaint case pending in the Court of Magistrate, it has been stated by the Petitioners that the summoning order has been passed in a casual and perfunctory manner without due application of mind. Entire case of respondent No. 2 is based on mis-representation and concealment of facts. The present petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case. The complaint filed by respondent No. 2 is a clear case of vendetta without any just reason or basis as respondent No. 2 is attempting to force and pressurize petitioners to allow him to work in the company on his own terms and conditions. No expert evidence has been brought on record and no attempt was made to prove document in question i.e. letter dated 23rd August, 2002 was created or forged and alterations were made in the medical certificate by the petitioners. Mere statement of respondent No. 2 and statement of witnesses would not be sufficient to prove the basic ingredient of offence under Section 471 IPC. In order to prove forgery, original document is the best evidence but the same has not been placed before the Court of Magistrate. Besides, the case of respondent No. 2 is user of alleged forged documents in Mumbai and hence Delhi Courts have no jurisdiction to try the said offence. Further, the handwriting expert has opined that there are no significant differences between the disputed signatures on the document and standard signatures and writing of respondent No. 2.

30. No finding has been given by any authority till date that the show cause notice dated 10th May, 2003 issued by petitioner No. 2 to respondent No. 2 is a false. The grievance of respondent No. 2 is that petitioner No. 2 has alleged that the medical certificate was issued for 'Ms. Indukant Dixit' which is a wrong fact and respondent No. 2, has been wrongly charged with submitting a false medical certificate. According to respondent No. 2, petitioners have been dishonestly altered medical certificate dated April 12, 2003 and they have made a false/forged document and had committed forgery.

42. Section 463, 464, 465, 469 and 471 of IPC read as under:

463. Forgery-Whoever makes any false documents or false electronic record or part of a document or electronic record, with intent to cause damage or injury, to the public or to any person, or to support any claim or title, or to cause any person to part with property, or to enter into any express or implied contract, or with intent to commit fraud or that fraud may be committed, commits forgery.
464. Making a false document-A person is said to make a false document or false electronic record- First-Who dishonestly or fraudulently-

44. According to the respondent No. 2, the photocopy of this document was placed by petitioner No. 1 before the labour Court of Mumbai as well as before the Conciliation Officer, Jammu. There is nothing on record to show that any such document was placed by petitioner No. 1 before the Labour Court of Mumbai or before the Conciliation Officer, Jammu nor that record has been summoned or proved by respondent No. 2 at the time of his pre-summoning evidence.

45. When neither original document nor its certified copy is either before this Court or the trial court, I fail to understand as to how a finding can be given by any Court that petitioner No. 1 has committed forgery of this document or had made a false document.