Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

He further placed reliance upon S. W. Palanitkar v. State of Bihar, 2002 (1) SCC 241, in which it was held that to constitute an offence of cheating the intention to deceive should be in existence at the time when inducement was made and it was necessary to show that a person had fraudulent and dishonest intention at the time of making the promise and that a mere failure to keep the promise subsequently cannot be presumed to be an act leading to cheating.

Further, reliance has been placed upon Smt. Phoolmati and others v. State of U.P. and another, (Manu/UP/0661/2016) which shows that forgery is sine-qua-non of offences under Section 467, 468 & 471 of I.P.C. Making of false document or false electric record or part thereof is condition precedent for offence of forgery. Perusal of Section 464 of I.P.C. (making of a false document) demonstrates that a person is said to have made false document if; (a) he executed a document claiming to be someone else or authorized by someone else; or (b) he altered and tampered a document; or (c) he obtained a document by practicing deception or from a person not in control of his faculties. In the light of above proposition of law, it is submitted that in the present case, the forged letters of consent were not prepared by the applicants, the same have been prepared just to implicate the applicants falsely with malafide intention by MOFSL or complainant just to get away from their liability. The applicants had never handled the accounts of the opposite party no. 3 as they were just facilitators. Further, it is submitted that record reveals that there was no allegation against accused applicants that they tried to deceive the complainant either by making a false or misleading representation. There was no allegation of fraudulent or dishonest inducement either; nor was there delivery of any property. In fact, the opposite party no. 3 was neither the aggrieved person for the purposes of Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 & 471 of I.P.C. nor victim within the meaning of Section 2(wa) of Cr.P.C. The complainant has been not defrauded in any manner. Further it is submitted that it is clear that the accused is not a beneficiary as per the statement of Demat account and that it is universal truth that there is always risk involved while trading in financial markets. The complainant/opposite party no. 3 has accused the accused applicants just to recover their losses incurred by them in market, though the applicants have no role in such transactions. It is further argued that the dispute between the parties is purely of civil nature, therefore, the remedy would be before the competent civil court. It was agreed between the parties that in case any dispute arises between them in connection with any of the transactions, the same shall be finally settled through Dispute Resolution Cell of the concerned Exchange and SEBI. The complainant had every knowledge of pros and cons and yet she willfully deposited the amount with MOFSL. As regards, applicant no. 2, she has been simply implicated being daughter-in-law of the applicant no. 1. Hence, the said proceedings need to be quashed.

Now, this Court has to express opinion as to whether on the basis of evidence which has come on record, offence under Section 406 I.P.C. (criminal breach of trust), offence under Section 420 I.P.C. (cheating), offence under Section 467 I.P.C. (forging of valuable security, will etc.), offence under Section 468 I.P.C. (forgery for the purpose of cheating), offence under Section 471 I.P.C. (using as genuine forged document or electric record) and offence under Section 504 & 506 of I.P.C. are made out or not.

As regards offence under Section 468 of I.P.C., essential ingredients are as follows:

(i) That the accused committed forgery;
(ii) That he did so intending that the document or electronic record forged shall be used for the purpose of cheating.

In the facts of the present case, these two ingredients are found to have been satisfied, hence offence under Section 468 I.P.C. is found to have been made out prima-facie.

As regards offence under Section 471 I.P.C., essential ingredients are as follows: