Headnote:(a) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 420 – Changing dates of application and receipt of the certified copy of sale deed, on the certified copy – Section 420 not attracted – Allegation of offence u/s 420 baseless. (Para 15)
       (b) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 467 – Changing dates of application and receipt of the certified copy of sale deed, on the certified copy – Such change could not cause damage or injury to public or anybody – Neither could it support the claim or title of any body – Nor could it cause any person to part with property – Does not show any intention to commit fraud – Not a forgery – Allegation baseless. (Para 16)
       (c) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 468 – Changing dates of application and receipt of the certified copy of sale deed, on the certified copy – Appellant not gaining anything by making such change, not even from bar of limitation – Such change does not make the document a false document – Section 468 not attracted. (Para 17)
       (d) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 471 – Provision attracted only in case of the use of a forged document as a genuine document – No element of forgery found in the document in question – No dishonest intention on part of appellant – No offence u/s 471 made out. (Para 18)
       (e) Criminal trial – Investigation and cognizance – Making changes in dates – Not to avoid any latches – Whole prosecution mala fide, malicious and vengeanceful – Dismissal of transfer petitions not relevant – Respondent no. 2 stating to have been kept oppressed and depressed at the instance of the appellant and her husband, yet claims to have his brother’s power of attorney – Contradiction not reconcilable – Investigation not proper and cognizance unjustified. (Para 19)
       (2008) 10 SCC 109 – Distinguished
       (f) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 482 – Only allegation against petitioner being change of dates for application for certified copy and receipt of the same – FIR not disclosing any offence – It is a case for a malicious and vengeanceful prosecution having no base – This prosecution is abuse of the process of law – Ought to have been quashed. (Para 14, 20, 23)
       (1992) Supp. 1 SCC 335 – Relied upon
       AIR 2000 SC 3330; (2008) 10 SCC 109 – Distinguished
       Facts of the case:
       One Amrinder Kaur and her husband Col. Hargobind Singh owned agricultural property, bearing Khata Nos. 40 and 2. They were unable to look after the property and, therefore, appointed Hargursharan Singh, respondent No. 2 herein (the real brother of Col. Hargobind Singh), as their general attorney.
       Respondent No. 2, by virtue of general power of attorney, sold the aforementioned land and delivered possession to the purchasers. He described appellant-Parminder Kaur as a stranger.
       The appellant, Parminder Kaur, filed two suits claiming to be holding Power of Attorney for Amrinder Kaur, against the purchasers praying for cancellation of the Sale Deeds.
       It was contended in the FIR that she had committed the offences u/s 420/467/468/471 IPC.
       The High Court dismissed the application u/s 482 Cr PC taking the view that the FIR, as well as, the material collected by the prosecution were good enough at least to proceed and it could not be said that no offence was disclosed from the same.
       Finding of the Court:
       The FIR does not disclose any offence. It deserves to be quashed.
       Result:
       Appeal allowed.

Judgement Key Points

Key Points: - (!) The court questions the relevance and sufficiency of forgery allegations based on date interpolation. - (!) Forgery defined under IPC 463; need to show false document made with intent to damage/public, etc. - (!) Merely altering dates does not automatically render a document false; requires dishonest intention or gain. - (!) Section 471 not applicable due to lack of use of forged document as genuine. - (!) - (!) Prosecution deemed malicious/vengeful; guidelines from Bhajan Lal applied to quash as abuse of process. - (!) - (!) Detailed analysis of whether interpolations could benefit the accused; the Court found no clear justifiable gain.

Question 1?

How to determine whether changing dates on certified copies constitutes forgery under IPC sections 463, 464, 467, 468 and 471?

Question 2?

What is the test to decide whether alteration of dates in certified revenue records amounts to making a false document or to an innocuous alteration?

Question 3?

How to assess whether prosecution for forgery is mala fide and an abuse of process of law warranting quashing?

V. S. SIRPURKAR, J.

( 1 ) LEAVE granted.

( 2 ) THIS appeal is filed challenging the order of the High court, whereby, the High Court has dismissed an application filed by the appellant herein under Section 482 of the criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter called "cr. P. C. " for short) for quashing the proceedings arising out of charge sheet of case No. 3045 of 2004 under Sections 420/467/468/471 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter called "ipc" for short), pending in the Court of Chief judicial Magistrate, Rampur.

( 3 ) THIS prosecution was initiated on the basis of the first Information Report (FIR) dated 27. 2. 2004 lodged by one Hargursharan Singh (complainant) against the appellant herein, alleging the offences under aforementioned sections. As per the said complainant, by respondent no. 2 one Amrinder Kaur and her husband Col. Hargobind Singh owned agricultural property, bearing Khata Nos. 40 and 2. They were unable to look after the property and, therefore, appointed Hargursharan Singh, respondent No. 2 herein (the real brother of Col. Hargobind Singh), as their general attorney. Respondent No. 2 herein, by virtue of general power of attorney, sold the aforementioned land and delivered possession to the purchasers. He described appellant-Parminder Kaur as a stranger. Two Civil Suits came to be filed by the appellant, Parminder Kaur, claiming to be holding Power of Attorney for Amrinder Kaur, against the purchasers. They were Civil Suit Nos. 266 of 2002 and 267 of 2002. In those Civil Suits, she prayed for the cancellation of the Sale Deeds. According to the prosecution, while instituting these suits on 27. 5. 2002, the appellant had filed a false affidavit that she had come to know regarding the Sale Deed only on 16. 5. 2002 and had obtained a certified copy of Revenue Record on 27. 5. 2002. According to the complainant, in fact, the appellant had actually moved for the certified copy of Khatauni on 6. 5. 2002 and had already received the copy on 7. 5. 2002. On that allegation, it was contended in the FIR that she had committed the offences as alleged. The High Court took the view that the FIR, as well as, the material collected by the prosecution were good enough at least to proceed and it could not be said that no offence was disclosed from the same. It is this judgment of the High Court, which is challenged before us.

( 4 ) WE have seen the FIR closely, on the basis of which the offences were registered. This report has been authored by respondent No. 2 Hargursharan Singh S/o Shri gurbaksh Singh. It has been stated in this report that he held a power of attorney on behalf of one Col. Hargobind singh and "amrinder Kaur" and on that basis, he sold the land of Amrinder Kaur to one Col. Sarabjeet Singh S/o Avtar singh and Namrata Chandi D/o Hargursharan Singh (i. e. the daughter of the complainant ). It was pointed out that the registration was effected in the same year. Similarly, he had sold one other land of Col. Hargobind Singh to one prabhjyot Singh S/o Teja Singh and Balbir Singh S/o Gurjit singh. He also claimed that some other land out of the total land was also sold to one Manjeet Singh S/o Jagir singh and Balbir Singh S/o Gurjit Singh. It was further asserted that the lands were in cultivation of the vendees. One "unrelated lady" Parminder Kaur W/o Col. Hargobind singh, R/o Village Behait, Distt. Rampur, who had no right in the said land, had filed two Civil Suits, being Civil suit Nos. 266 of 2002 and 267 of 2002 against Hargursharan singh (the complainant) and also filed Civil Suit No. 268 of 2002 against Prabhjyot Singh in the Court of Civil judge, Rampur. It was claimed that said suits were pending disposal. It was further claimed that the suits were filed by Parminder Kaur (appellant herein) and she supported the same with a false affidavit, in which she stated that she learnt about the sale of agricultural land on 16. 5. 2002 and immediately, she applied for the certified copy of the revenue records, which

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2009 Supreme(SC) 1675

Supreme Court Of IndiaTarun Chatterjee,V.S.SirpurkarPARMINDER KAURVersusSTATE OF U. P.Decided On : 10/26/2009