2009 Supreme(SC) 1531

2009(6) Supreme 470
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
R. V. Raveendran and R. M. Lodha,JJ.
Md. Ibrahim & Ors. — Appellants
Versus
State of Bihar & Anr. — Respondents
Criminal Appeal No.1695 of 2009
Arising out of SLP [Crl.] No.6211 of 2007
Decided on : 04-09-2009

IMPORTANT POINTS
1. By merely alleging or showing that a person acted fraudulently, it cannot be assumed that he committed an offence punishable under the Code or any other law, unless that fraudulent act is specified to be an offence under the Code or other law.
2. To fall under category of ‘false documents’, it is not sufficient that a document has been made or executed dishonestly or fraudulently. There is a further requirement that it should have been made with the intention of causing it to be believed that such document was made or executed by, or by the authority of a person, by whom or by whose authority he knows that it was not made or executed.

Headnote:Criminal Procedure Code,1973 —Section 482 — Complaint filed by respondent 2 against appellants 1 to 3 and two others alleging that he was the owner of suit land; that the Accused 1 who had no connection with the said land and who had no title thereto, had executed two registered sale deeds in favour of the accused 2 in respect of a portion of the said land and that accused 3 to 5 witness, scribe and stamp vendor in regard to the sale deeds had conspired with accused 1 and 2 to forge the said documents- Magistrate took cognizance of the offences under sections 323, 341, 420, 467, 471 and 504 of Indian Penal Code — Application for discharge — Dismissed by Sub-Divisional Magistrate- Application there against under section 482 Cr.PC — Dismissed by High Court — Appeal — To fall under category of ‘false documents’, it is not sufficient that a document has been made or executed dishonestly or fraudulently — There is a further requirement that it should have been made with the intention of causing it to be believed that such document was made or executed by, or by the authority of a person, by whom or by whose authority he knows that it was not made or executed- 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) was not execution of a false document as defined under section 464 of the Code — If what was executed was not a false document, there was no forgery — If there was no forgery, then neither section 467 nor section 471 of the Code were attracted- Order of Magistrate quashed insofar as offences under sections 420, 467, 471 and 504 IPC-However charges in so far as the offence under sections 323 and 341 IPC were left undisturbed—Appeal allowed in part. (Paras 8 to 12, 18, 19)

        Indian Penal Code,1860 — Section 420 — Offence of cheating-When a sale deed is executed conveying a property claiming ownership thereto, it may be possible for the purchaser under such sale deed, to allege that the vendor has cheated him by making a false representation of ownership and fraudulently induced him to part with the sale consideration- But in this case the complaint was not by purchaser-On the other hand, the purchaser was made a co-accused — No case of complainant that any of the accused tried to deceive him either by making a false or misleading representation or by any other action or omission — No case of complainant either is that they offered him any fraudulent or dishonest inducement to deliver any property or to consent to the retention thereof by any person or to intentionally induce him to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived — Nor did the complainant allege that the first appellant pretended to be complainant while executing the sale deeds — Hence it could not be said that accused 1 by act of executing sale deeds in favour of accused 2 or accused 2 by reason of being purchaser, or third, fourth and fifth accused, by reason of being the witness, scribe and stamp vendor in regard to the sale deeds, deceived the complainant in any manner — As the ingredients of cheating as stated in section 415 were not found, it could not be said that there was an offence punishable under sections 417, 418, 419 or 420 of the Code. (Paras 13 to 16)

        Indian Penal Code,1860 — Section 504 — Section 504 refers to intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace- The allegation in the complaint was that when complainant enquired with accused 1 and 2 about sale deeds, they asserted that they will obtain possession of land under the sale deeds and he can do whatever he wants — The statement attributed to appellants 1 and 2, could not be said to amount to an “insult with intent to provoke breach of peace” — The statement attributed to accused, even if it was true, was merely a statement referring to consequence of execution of the sale deeds by appellant1 in favour of appellant 2 — The allegations in the complaint did not make out ingredients of an offence under section 504 of Penal Code. (Para17)

       Facts of the Case :

        A Complaint was filed by respondent 2 against appellants 1 to 3 and two others herein in the instant case alleging that he was the owner of suit land; that the Accused 1 who had no connection with the said land and who had no title thereto, had executed two registered sale deeds in favour of the accused2 in respect of a portion of the said land and that accused 3 to 5 witness, scribe and stamp vendor in regard to the sale deeds had conspired with accused 1 and 2 to forge the said documents. Magistrate took cognizance of the offences under sections 323, 341, 420, 467, 471 and 504 of Indian Penal Code. Application for discharge was filed by accused on plea that they bonafide sold a portion of the land.Sub-Divisional Magistrate, rejected the application for discharge holding that there was sufficient material for framing charges. Accused thereafter filed an application under section 482 Cr.PC for quashing said order .High Court dismissed petition holding that Magistrate had found sufficient material showing complicity of accused in the crime.

        2. Aggrieved accused has preferred present appeal.

       Findings of the Court :

        To fall under category of ‘false documents’, it is not sufficient that a document has been made or executed dishonestly or fraudulently. There is a further requirement that it should have been made with the intention of causing it to be believed that such document was made or executed by, or by the authority of a person, by whom or by whose authority he knows that it was not made or executed. 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) was not execution of a false document as defined under section 464 of the Code. If what was executed was not a false document, there was no forgery. If there was no forgery, then neither section 467 nor section 471 of the Code were attracted. Again, as the ingredients of cheating as stated in section 415 were not found, it could not be said that there was an offence punishable under sections 417, 418, 419 or 420 of the Code. The allegations in the complaint did not even make out ingredients of an offence under section 504 of Penal Code. Order of Magistrate was quashed insofar as offences under sections 420, 467, 471 and 504 IPC. were concerned. However charges in so far as the offence under sections 323 and 341 IPC were left undisturbed.

       Result : Appeal allowed in part.