Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

7. Cognizance was taken by the learned Magistrate for the offences under Sections 465, 467, 471 and 120B of Indian Penal Code. Section 468 of Indian Penal code provides for forgery for the purpose of cheating. Under the Section, whoever commits forgery, intending that the 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 fine.

8. Section 471 of Indian Penal Code provides that 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.

When a document is executed by a person claiming a property which is not his, he is not claiming that he is someone else nor is he claiming that he is authorised by someone else. Therefore, execution of such document (purporting to convey some property of which he is not the owner) is not execution of a false document as defined under Section 464 of the Code. If what is executed is not a false document, there is no forgery. If there is no forgery, then neither Section 467 nor Section 471 of the Code are attracted." (emphasis supplied)

"When we say that execution of a sale deed by a person, purporting to convey a property which is not his, as his property, is not making a false document and therefore, not forgery, we should not be understood as holding that such an act can never be criminal offence. It 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 purchase under the deed may not be able to make such complaint."

18. The Honourable Supreme Court was explaining the position when a person transfers a property as belonging to him, when he has no right over the property. Their Lordships only explained that though such document is not a false document and therefore, it is not a forgery, it does not mean that in such a case no criminal offence is involved. If a person sells a property knowing that it does not belong to him and thereby defrauds the person who purchases the property, the person defrauded has a right to complain the fraudulent act of cheating. But, that does not mean that when such a purchaser complains of defrauding, it is a false document or that forgery was committed. It is different from the case projected by the second respondent. If A purchases a property from B, though B has no right over that property, as B fraudulently made A to believe that it is his property and induced A to purchase it, B thereby cheated A. But, for that reason, the document will not be a false document. Their Lordships held that though it is not a false document, that does not mean that the vendee has no right to proceed against the vendor or that vendor is not liable for cheating. But, that does not mean that second respondent, whose right, if any, will not be affected by the impugned documents, can contend that those documents are false documents as provided under Section 464 of Indian Penal Code or that thereby petitioners committed offences either under Section 465 or 468 or 471 of Indian Penal Code. If fourth accused did not derive right over the property purchased in court auction sale or over 29.70 cents of property claimed by the second respondent, whatever be the transfer effected by the fourth accused or by the assignors of the fourth accused, the right of the second respondent under Document Nos.220/1980 and 437/1980, if any, will not be affected. Therefore, right of the second respondent cannot be equated with the right of a person, who was fraudulently induced to purchase a property from a person, who had no right over the property, which was considered by the Honourable Supreme Court in the clarification in paragraph 23 of the said decision. It is not for this Court to settle the title over 29.70 cents of the disputed property, as that question can only be decided by the civil court.