Back
TARUN CHATTERJEE, V.S.SIRPURKAR
PARMINDER KAUR – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF U. P. – Respondent
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?
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.
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
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
