JUDGMENT

Hansaria, J.-Leave granted.

The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Imphal, took cognizance of a complaint against the appellant under Sections 465 and 468 read with Section 420 IPC; and ordered on 20.12.90 to issue warrant of arrest against him. He approached the Gauhati High Court, Imphal Bench, seeking quashing of the criminal proceedings. The High Court having dismissed the revision petition, this Court has been approached under Article 136 of the Constitution.

2. Shri Jethmalani, appearing for the appellant has contended that the proceeding is an abuse of the process of the court and deserves to be quashed because of there being no legally admissible evidence against the appellant and also because no offence has been made out even if the allegations made against the appellant in the complaint be accepted as true.

3. The abuse of process argument is advanced, inter alia, on the ground that the complaint is stale inasmuch as relating to the self - same matter a complaint had been filed in early 1966 under Section 500 IPC, which became subject matter of Complaint Case No. 13/66, which, however, ended in compromise in 1968. According to the learned counsel, to re-agitate the same matter in 1990 is not for any bonafide purpose but because of jealousy against the appellant for his having been awarded Sangeet Natak Akademy Award for the book titled "Govinda Sangeet Lila Vilasa" which was published by the appellant in 1964. The award was in token of the learned presentation of the subject. The abuse argument is also advanced because in the earlier case an apology had been tendered by the appellant which had come to be accepted; and so, the present complaint is only to harass him.

4. Dr. Ghosh, appearing for the respondent, has urged that a fresh cause of action accrued, which led to the filing of the present complaint, inasmuch as the appellant repeated the same offence in his article published in "Dances of Manipur; the classical tradition", which saw light in 1989. This compendium contains an article by the appellant titled "Theory: the textual tradition" in which it has been again stated by the appellant that the former book (Govinda Sangeet Leela Vilasa) had been written by King Bhagyachandra in 18th centuary, a part of whose manuscript has been published at page 101. So, according to the learned counsel, the appellant has reiterated his stand that the first book, which was the subject matter of 1966 complaint, is based on King Bhagyachandra s write-up. The allegation is that Bhagyachandra being illiterate could not have written the manuscript; and the appellant in order to give credence to his book falsely represented to the readers that the same is based on manuscript written by the King.

5. On the aforesaid facts, we would not accept the contention of Shri Jethmalani that a stale matter is being reagitated of jealousy. We, therefore, do not find in the present case any abuse of the process of the court, as urged by the counsel.

6. We may now examine the contention that the allegations made in the complaint, even if true, do not make out a case under the aforesaid penal sections. The basic allegation is that the appellant had forged the first book by stating that it was based on the manuscript of the King thereby deceiving the Government to get it published for which purpose assistance of Rs. 2,500 was given and which also induced many members of the public to buy the same believing it as genuine thereby depriving them of their money. Shri Jethmalani has urged that for an offence under Section 465, the same has to be "forgery" as defined in Section 463, whose first ingredient is making of "any false document or a part of a document". A person is said to make a false document as per Section 464.

First - who dishonestly or fraudulently makes, signs, seals or executes a document or part of a document, or makes any mark denoting the execution of a document, with the intention of causing it to be believed that such document or part of a