Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: Forgery ipc in Mr. Aleixo Damiao Gracias vs Shri Darwin Benny Cardoso on 19 June, 2024Matching Fragments
19th June 2024 WPCR 138 OF 2018.ODT
9. Mr. Zaveri would further submit that Chapter XVIII of IPC deals with offences relating to documents wherein forgery is defined under Section 463 of IPC whereas Section 464 of IPC deals with making of a false document. He submits that considering the averments made in the complaint filed before the learned Magistrate, Section 463 of IPC is not available or attracted, but, Section 192 of IPC is certainly attracted.
19th June 2024 WPCR 138 OF 2018.ODT
13. Per contra, learned Counsel, Mr. Bhobe appearing for the Respondent would submit that the subject complaint is filed against the Accused persons for the offences of forgery and not with regard to Section 192 or 193 of IPC. He submits that the contentions of the Complainant are very clear. The report of the handwriting expert would clearly go to show that the declaration is a forged document and therefore, the offence of forgery stands completed once the document is considered to be forged and executed. He submits that the aspect of subsequent use of such document in any proceedings, would not be important for the purpose of inviting Section 195 of IPC for the simple reason that the offence of forgery stands completed once the document is forged. It is submitted that subsequent use of such document in any proceedings would not attract or debar the Complainant from lodging such complaint so also, the Magistrate from taking cognizance of it.
33. The Apex Court in Bhima Razu Prasad (supra) after referring to the decision in Bandekar Brothers Pvt. Ltd.
19th June 2024 WPCR 138 OF 2018.ODT (supra) and Iqbal Singh Marwah (supra), discussed in paragraphs 32 and 33 as under:
"32. This Court thereafter proceeded to distinguish between the offence of fabricating false evidence under Sections 192 and 193IPC and the offence of forgery. It noted that the averments made by the appellants in their complaints pertained exclusively to giving of false evidence and did not disclose the ingredients of forgery as defined under the IPC. Hence, this Court in Bandekar Brothers (supra) upheld the respondents' contentions, and opined that Iqbal Singh Marwah (supra) would not benefit the appellants in that case. Even though the false evidence was created outside of the Court, it was by the appellants' own admission, created "in relation to" proceedings before the Court. Thus, this Court held that: