Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

9. In the month of April, 2003, respondent No. 2 came to know through Mr.Neelkanth Paratkar a close associate of respondent No. 2 and who was illegally dismissed from the services of PTI on account of his trade union activities, that in his personal case, titled as Neelkanth Paratkar v. PTI Management, for reinstatement, petitioners have filed a photocopy of letter dated August 23, 2002 stating that this letter was written by respondent No. 2 to petitioner No. 1 and the management falsely claimed before the labour court of Mumbai for their own illegal benefit, to support their claim against Mr.Neelkanth Paratkar in this case where the photocopy of this false document was placed on record, that respondent No. 2 had written this letter dated August 23, 2002 to petitioner No. 1. Respondent No. 2 never wrote any such letter to petitioner No. 1. The letter dated 23 August, 2002 is a false and forged document and petitioners had made this false document with intention to cause damage/injury to respondent No. 2 to support their own claim and by doing so they have committed the offences under Sections 463/464 IPC punishable under Section 465 IPC.

11. The petitioners have also placed on record the photocopy of this forged letter before the Conciliation Officer, Jammu in the matter of 'Indukant Dixit v. PTI management' in May, 2003 and by doing so have committed offences under Sections 463, 464, 465, 469 and 471 IPC.

12. It is further stated by respondent No. 2 in his complaint, that on April 14, 2003, he submitted an application in the office at Jammu addressing petitioner No. 1 for medical leave from 6th April, 2003 to 13th April, 2003 and the same was supported by the original medical certificate issued by Dr. S. Chakraborty. On 10th May, 2003, respondent No. 2 was surprised to receive a show cause notice from petitioner No. 2. Petitioner No. 2 in collusion and connivance with petitioner No. 1, charged respondent No. 2 of submitting a false medical certificate under a false name making a false representation of facts for the period of April 5, 2003 to April 12, 2003. Petitioner No. 2 alleged that the medical certificate was issued for Ms. Indukant Dixit. Respondent No. 2 was surprised to read these allegations because he had submitted a genuine certificate. He gave reply to the show cause notice vide letter dated May 23, 2003 and also enclosed the photocopy of the original medical certificate. The petitioners did not specifically reply to the letter dated May 23, 2003 of respondent No. 2 but deliberately with mala fide intention to harass him, deducted his salary for the period from April 5, 2003 to April 12, 2003 even when medical leave application and original leave certificates were submitted to him. Respondent No. 2 had no alternative but to file application in May, 2003 before Assistant Labour Commissioner, Jammu for release of his salary and prosecution of the management of PTI. Petitioners had dishonestly altered the document, i.e. the medical certificate dated April 12, 2003 in a material way after it was submitted by respondent No. 2 and by doing so they have made a false/ forged document and have committed offences under Section 463, 464 IPC, punishable under Section 465 IPC.

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.

40. Under these circumstances, there is no question of petitioner No. 1 committing any offence under Section 211 IPC.

41. With regard to the allegations under Section 463/464 punishable under Section 465 IPC, the case of respondent No. 2 is that petitioners have made false document dated August 23, 2002 with the intention to cause damage/injury to respondent no 2 to support their own claim and have also placed a photocopy of this forged and false letter before the Conciliation Officer, Jammu in the matter of Indukant Dixit v. PTI management in May, 2003 and by doing so have committed offences under Sections 463, 464, 465, 469 and 471 IPC also.