Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: Forgery of document in Sh. Suneel Galgotia And Another vs State Of U.P. Thru Secy. And 3 Others on 23 September, 2015Matching 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:
"463. Forgery.-- Whoever makes any false documents or false electronic record or part of a document or electronic record, with intent to cause damage or injury, to the public or to any person, 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, or with intent to commit fraud or that fraud may be committed, commits forgery."
76. The term "forgery' thus brings us to the term "false document" and Section 464 IPC provides as to when it can be said that one has made false document. It reads as under:
468. Forgery for purpose of cheating.--Whoever commits forgery, intending that the document or electronic record 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.
471. Using as genuine a forged document or electronic record.--Whoever fraudulently or dishonestly uses as genuine any document or electronic record which he knows or has reason to believe to be a forged document or electronic record, shall be punished in the same manner as if he had forged such document or electronic record."
79. To attract Section 467 IPC, the essential ingredients are that the accused has forged a document and the document must be one of classes specified in Section, namely, valuable security or Will etc. Section 468 would be attracted when there is a forgery of a document with an intention to use the same for the purpose of cheating. Section 471 would be attracted when someone fraudulently or dishonestly uses a document as genuine document, which he knows or has reason to believe that the same is forged document.