Document Fragment View
Matching Fragments
19. A close scrutiny of the aforesaid provisions makes it clear that, Section 463 defines the offence of forgery, while Section 464 substantiates the same by providing an answer as to when a false document could be said to have been made for the purpose of committing an offence of forgery under Section 463, IPC.
Therefore, we can safely deduce that Section 464 defines one of the ingredients of forgery i.e., making of a false document. Further, Section 465 provides punishment for the commission of the offence of forgery. In order to sustain a conviction under Section 465, first it has to be proved that forgery was committed under Section 463, implying that ingredients under Section 464 should also be satisfied. Therefore unless and untill ingredients under Section 463 are satisfied a person cannot be convicted under Section 465 by solely relying on the ingredients of Section 464, as the offence of forgery would remain incomplete
http://www.judis.nic.in 22. In Md. Ibrahim and others V. State of Bihar and another (supra), this Court had the occasion to examine forgery of a document purporting to be a valuable security (Section 467, IPC) and using of forged document as genuine (Section 471, IPC). While considering the basic ingredients of both the offences,this Court observed that to attract the offence of forgery as defined under Section 463, IPC depends upon creation of a document as defined under Section 464, IPC. It is further observed that mere execution of a sale deed by claiming that property being sold was executant's property, did not amount to commission of offences punishable under Sections 467 and 471, IPC even if title of property did not vest in the executant.
11.In the present case, the petitioners have executed the sale deed for the entire 3 cents. The respondent is claiming that the civil Court has decreed the suit in her favour, for 1 ½ cents and therefore, the petitioners should not have executed a sale deed for the entire 3 cents. The question is whether the petitioners have created a false document by executing the sale deed for the entire 3 cents. The petitioners are claiming title through their father who purchased the property from one Shanmugam. That apart the http://www.judis.nic.in petitioners are also contesting the right of the respondent who is claiming ½ share in the property. The second appeal filed by the petitioners with a delay, is also pending before this Court. Under such circumstances, the petitioners cannot be held to have committed the offence of creating a false document under Section 464 of the code of Criminal Procedure. If what has been executed by the petitioners is not a false document, then there is no offence of forgery and without there being an offence of forgery, no offence under Section 467 and 471 IPC can be made out. Similarly the allegations made in the complaint also do not make out the offence under Section 420 IPC, since it is not the case of the complainant that the petitioners tried to deceive him either by making a false or misleading representation or by any other action or omission. It is also not the case of the complainant that the petitioners offered her any fraudulent or dishonest inducement to deliver the property or consented to the retention of the property by any person.