Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(4) It has further argued that the offences under section 420, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC in which the cognizance has been taken by the learned Court below can be said to be made out only when there is ample material evidence of cheating, forgery of valuable documents, forgery for the purpose of cheating and using the forged documents as a genuine. But, herein case there was no material before the learned Court below to have prima facie come to a conclusion that petitioner had dishonestly induced NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:8819 3 WP-30799-2024 someone in order to deceive him or her to deliver any property to any person or to make alter or destroy the whole or any part of the valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable or being converted into valuable security, thus, for attracting the provisions of section 420 it is paramount that the accused has not only cheated someone but also while doing so he or she had dishonestly induced the person who is cheated to deliver the property, therefore, there are three components of the offence (i) the deception of any person, (ii) fraudulently or dishonestly inducing that person to deliver any property to any person, and (iii) mens rea or dishonest intention of the accused at the time of making the inducement and it is not gainsaid that for the offence of cheating, fraudulent and dishonest intention must exist from the inception when the promise or representation was made. It was thus argued that when the document i.e. mark-sheet which is stated to have been forged and had been submitted by the petitioner at the time of her nomination was not at all required to be filed along with the nomination, but was filed, it cannot be said that there was any intention of any deception or cheating to anyone.

(6) It was further argued that so far as charge under section 468 of NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:8819 4 WP-30799-2024 IPC is concerned, as per the case of the complainant himself the present petitioner had not committed any forgery and tampered the documents, the only allegations against the petitioner is that a forged mark-sheet has been submitted at the time of submission of her nomination, thus, section 468 of IPC cannot be pressed into service against the petitioner.

(28) So far as Section 468 and 471 of IPC are concerned they begins with the expression "whoever commits" or "whoever uses". The intention of the law makers is clear that these provisions are aimed against the persons who has used the forged documents as a genuine document. If NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:8819 17 WP-30799-2024 the story of the complainant is accepted on its face value it would be clear that there is no allegations against the present petitioner that she has either tampered the document or had fraudulently used the said documents for obtaining position or for any other purpose. Merely the allegations against the petitioner are that she had submitted a mark-sheet of Class X which later-on was found to be a forged mark-sheet and though the report was made to the police, the police had not registered a crime against her, therefore, the present complaint was moved. Thus, in the opinion of this Court when there are no allegations of tampering the documents against the petitioner or there is even no allegation of fraudulent use of the said mark-sheet for getting elected, in the opinion of this Court no case is made out against the present petitioner under section 468 and 471 of IPC. Another aspect with regard to attracting the provisions under section 468 and 471 of IPC which needs consideration is that there are two primary components that need to be fulfilled in order to establish the offence of forgery (i) that the accused have fabricated an instrument (ii) it had done with an intention that the forged document be used for the purpose of cheating. Simply put the offence of forgery requires a preparation of false document with a dishonest intention of causing damage or injury. The offences of forgery and cheating intersect and converse, as the act of forgery is committed with an intent to deceive or cheat an individual, which is not a case herein.

(35) In light of the aforesaid if once again the offence under section 468 and 471 of IPC are seen, the offence of forgery under section 468 of IPC postulates that whoever commits forgery intending that document and NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:8819 21 WP-30799-2024 electronic document forged, shall be used for the purpose of cheating shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine, whereas section 471 of IPC postulates that whoever fraudulently or dishonestly uses as genuine any document which he knows or has reason to believe to be a forged document, shall be punished in the same manner as if he had forged such document. Thus, there are two primary components that need to be fulfilled in order to establish the offence of forgery (i) the accused has fabricated an instrument, (2) it has done with an intention that the forged document would be used for the purpose of cheating. Simply put, the offence of forgery requires a preparation of a false document with a dishonest intention of causing damage or injury. The offences of forgery and cheating intersect and converge, as the act of forgery is is committed with the intent to deceive or cheat an individual. Having extensively addressed the aspect of dishonest intent in the context of cheating under section 420 its stand establish that no dishonest intention can be made out against the petitioner and as this Court had earlier held that mark-sheet is not a valuable security the offence under section 467 of IPC is also not made out.