Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

"... We should not be understood as holding that such an act can never be a criminal offence. If a person sells a property knowing that it does not belong to him, and thereby defrauds the person who purchased the property, the person defrauded, that is the purchaser, may complain that the vendor committed the fraudulent act of cheating. But a third party who is not the purchaser under the deed may not be able to make such complaint."

47. In Parminder Kaur Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (supra) the facts of the case were very different. The appellant before Supreme Court was an old lady of about 74 years. There was an allegation that in a certified copy of revenue record there was an alteration in the date changing it from 6.5.2002 to 16.5.2002 and 7.5.2002 to 17.5.2002 and 27.5.2002. A first information report was lodged by Parminder Kaur wherein the Police after investigation submitted charge-sheet. She filed application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. before this Court for quashing of proceedings initiated under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C., but the application was rejected by this Court relying on Apex Court's decision in K. Rama Krishna and others Vs. State of Bihar and another (2000) 8 SCC 547. Hence, the matter was taken before Apex Court. The allegation of forgery was only that the date 6.5.2002 was altered as 16.5.2002 and 7.5.2002 was altered as 17.5.2002 and 27.5.2002. The Court first examined that even if it was accepted that such alteration was made, it did not give any advantage to Parminder Kaur in any manner and this position could not be disputed by counsel for other side. This is evident from what has been noticed in para 27 of the judgment. The Court further held that even if somebody has added the figure one, it cannot be said that it would render the document to be a forged document. It is in this context, the Court examined Section 463 and held that this alteration of one in the document does not satisfy the ingredients of forgery under Section 463 I.P.C. inasmuch even if this alteration is brought in, it could not be shown as to how it would cause damage or injury to public or anybody or how it could have supported the claim of title or how it could cause any person to part with property or for that matter how there could be any intention to commit fraud. It then noticed Sections 467, 468 I.P.C. and found these also not attracted in that case. Then it examined Section 464 which speaks of making a false document and noticed that first and third clauses were admittedly not attracted. Then in order to attract second clause of Section 464, there has to be alteration of document dishonestly and fraudulently. In order to attract second clause, if the document is to be altered it has to be for some gain or with such object on the part of accused. Merely, changing a document does not make it a false document. As no gain was shown, the Court held that even second clause was not attracted. The Court held the entire proceedings of prosecution mala fide, malicious and vengeanceful looking into the conduct of complainant, as noticed in para 36 which reads as under:

73. Now reverting back to the applicability of Section 415 and 420 IPC, we find that basic ingredient that the deception was at the time of inception, is absent.

74. Now we come to examine whether Sections 467, 468 and 471 IPC are attracted in this case. All the three provisions are part of same genus of offences dealt with under the head of "Forgery".

75. The term "forgery" has been defined in Section 463 IPC, which says that if any one makes any false documents etc. to cause damage or injury 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 etc., he would be said to have committed forgery. Section 463 reads as under:

77. Sections 467, 468 and 471 IPC contemplate certain stages of forgery and read under:

"467. Forgery of valuable security, will, etc.--Whoever forges a document which purports to be a valuable security or a will, or an authority to adopt a son, or which purports to give authority to any person to make or transfer any valuable security, or to receive the principal, interest or dividends thereon, or to receive or deliver any money, movable property, or valuable security, or any document purporting to be an acquittance or receipt acknowledging the payment of money, or an acquittance or receipt for the delivery of any movable property or valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.

78. One of the conditions to attract Section 463 is existence of false document. When a false document is said to have been made, we go to Section 464. It is admitted that conditions no. 1 and 3 are not applicable in the case in hand. We go, therefore, to second condition which provides that if a person without lawful authority, dishonestly or fraudulently by cancellation or otherwise alters a document in any material part thereof, after it has been executed or affixed either by himself or by any person, whether such person is living or dead at the time of said alteration, would be said to have made a false document. Having carefully gone through the aforesaid clause, we find that it is also not attracted in the case in hand at all. Once the alleged making of false document is not attracted, there cannot be any forgery and that being so, Sections 467, 468 and 471 IPC would not be attracted.