Back
CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Dr. Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee, J.
Kamala Devi Goyal – Petitioner
versus
State of West Bengal and Anr. – Opp. Parties
CRR 2730 of 2022 With CRAN 2 of 2023 and CRAN 6 of 2025
Decided on 10.6.2025
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 420/467/468/471/120B – Cheating, forgery and conspiracy – Quashing petition – Essential element of offence under Section 464 of IPC is that accused must make the document with intent of making it to be believed that it was signed by or under authority of someone else while he knows that it was not so made or authorised to make by that person – Charge of forgery cannot be imposed or sustained against a person against whom prima facie allegation of making false letter in question has not been established – Materials available during investigation does not suggest that prosecution could even prima facie establish that alleged letter was procured by petitioner or she procured signature of complainant – Materials available in case record reveals that after about one and half year of refusal order passed by civil court in respect of opposite party’s prayer for vacating injunction order, frustrated landlord has initiated impugned criminal proceeding which if allowed to continue would be abuse of process of law – Criminal proceedings quashed. (Paras 20, 22, 25 and 26)
Result: Petition allowed.
JUDGMENT
Dr. Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee, J.—This instant prayer for quashing of proceeding relates to GR Case No. 830 of 2020, arising out of Lake Town police station case no. 209 of 2020 dated 26.11.2020 under Section 420/467/468/471/120B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), presently pending before learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bidhannagar.
2. The allegations as set out in the first information report is that the opposite party no. 2/FIR maker purchased a property being premises no. 54-A Kali Krishna Tagore Street Kolkata-700007 in the year 2011, wherein the petitioner herein is a tenant of a shop room situated at the ground floor allegedly since 1975-76. The FIR maker after purchasing the said property filed ejectment suit being 130 of 2017 with a prayer for evicting the petitioner. The said suit was decreed ex-parte in favour of opposite party no.2 herein/FIR maker on 28.02.2018. Later on the opposite party no. 2 initiated execution proceeding being no. 72 of 2018 and in execution of the said decree, vacant khas possession of the said tenanted shop room was handed over to the opposite party no. 2 in presence of police. However, on 21.12.2018 the said opposite party no. 2 came to know that the petitioner along with other accused persons unlawfully trespassed into the said shop room and had taken forceful possession of the same. On enquiry the opposite party no.2 came to know that the petitioner along with other accused persons by forging the signature of opposite party no.2 have procured a letter which they have submitted before Jorabagan police station stating that both the parties have entered into an amicable settlement, whereby the opposite party no.2 herein has agreed and has handed over the possession of the said shop in favour of the petitioner on stipulated terms. The FIR maker’s specific case is that he neither entered into any kind of mutual settlement with the accused persons nor have signed any such letter to such effect. The complainant immediately on 22.12.2018 wrote a letter to accused no.4 protesting such forgery. Therefore, the petitioner along with the other accused persons are guilty of forging the signature of the FIR maker and also guilty of committing offence for preparing illegal letter dated 20.12.2018, by which they have taken illegal possession of the shop room.
3. Being aggrieved by the said proceeding Mr. Das Gupta learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that on perusal of the charge sheet it is evident that there is no reflection as to any report being obtained from an expert to substantiate the charge of forgery and in absence of such report offences under section 467/468/471 IPC is not maintainable. Under the provisions of 463 IPC, which defines forgery makes it clear that only one who makes false document can be held liable for offence of forgery. Therefore, the person who is not the maker of false document in question cannot be said to have committed forgery and in this context he relied upon the Judgement of Sheila Sebastian Vs. Jawaharaj and another reported in (2018) 7 SCC 581.
4. Petitioner’s further contention is that it is not in dispute that opposite party no.2 after executing decree passed in Title Execution 72 of 2018 obtained possession of the shop room but thereafter through intervention of Posta Bazar Merchants’ Association, the opposite party no. 2/ landlord entered into an amicable settlement wherein the opposite party no. 2 agreed to hand over possession to the petitioner herein on condition to clear all previous outstanding rent, amounting to Rs. 80,519/- till November, 2018 and on further condition to pay agreed enhanced rent of Rs. 4,000/- per month from December, 2018 and copy of such settlement letter was deposited to the nearby Police Station on the self-same date.
5. Petitioner’s further contention is as per aforesaid settlement, he paid Rs. 80,519/- through cheque no. 000021 dated 20.12.2018 and opposite party no. 2 duly encashed said cheque
Forgery – Charge of forgery cannot be imposed or sustained against a person against whom prima facie allegation of making false letter in question has not been established.
The court affirmed that civil disputes do not preclude the initiation of criminal proceedings based on allegations of forgery and that both can arise from the same facts independently.
Forged signature – Quash of proceedings - Court cannot quash the proceedings under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and cannot answer with regard to the disputed questions involved in the matter.
The court ruled that criminal proceedings cannot proceed for a civil dispute, especially when multiple FIRs arise from the same cause, indicating an abuse of process.
Quashing of criminal proceedings due to lack of sufficient evidence and failure to consider prior relevant filings by the opposite party.
When civil court findings affirm the genuineness of documents alleged to be forged, criminal proceedings for forgery should be quashed.
To attract the offence of forgery, the accused must be the maker of the forged document. The court also emphasized the importance of providing due opportunity to address arguments and the limitations....
It is well settled that in order to constitute an offence of cheating, it must be shown that the accused had fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of making the representation or promise and ....
The court established that civil disputes can coexist with criminal allegations, and the merits of such allegations must be determined through trial, not preemptively dismissed.
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
