Back
1991 Supreme(Pat) 73
PATNA HIGH COURT
Nagendra Rai, J.
Vijaykumar Thakur
Versus
Prof.Mahesh Prasad Singh
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 8437 of 1986 ; 9013 of 1986 ;
Decided On : FEBRUARY 25, 1991
The offense of forgery under Sections 463, 464, 465, 468, 469, and 471 of the Indian Penal Code requires dishonest or fraudulent intent and the absence of wrongful gain or loss to any person.
Headnote:
FORGERY - SECTION 463, 464, 465, 468, 469, 471 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE - ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS - DISHONEST OR FRAUDULENT INTENTION - ABSENCE OF WRONGFUL GAIN OR LOSS - ABUSE OF PROCESS OF COURT - QUASHING OF PROSECUTION.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners were accused of forgery for allegedly publishing a news item in a newspaper containing forged signatures of some historians. The news item was published in support of one P. N. Ojha, who was accused of deleting the name of the original author, Dr. K. K. Dutta, from a reprinted book and replacing it with his own name. The petitioners challenged the cognizance taken by the Chief Judicial Magistrate under Sections 465, 468, 469, and 471 of the Indian Penal Code.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the allegations against the petitioners did not constitute the offense of forgery as defined under Section 463 of the Indian Penal Code. The court held that the petitioners' actions did not involve dishonest or fraudulent intent and that there was no wrongful gain or loss to any person. The court also found that the complaint petition was filed with an oblique motive to harass the petitioners rather than to punish them for any criminal offense.
Issues: 1. Whether the allegations against the petitioners constituted the offense of forgery under Sections 463, 464, 465, 468, 469, and 471 of the Indian Penal Code? 2. Whether the prosecution of the petitioners was an abuse of the process of the court?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the essential elements of forgery under Section 463 of the Indian Penal Code are the making of a false document with the intent to cause damage or injury to the public or to any person, or to support any claim or title, or to cause any person to part with property, or to enter into any express or implied contract, or with the intent to commit fraud or that fraud may be committed. The court further held that a false document is defined under Section 464 of the Indian Penal Code as a document that is dishonestly or fraudulently made, signed, sealed, or executed with the intention of causing it to be believed that it was made, signed, sealed, or executed by a person by whom or by whose authority it was not made, signed, sealed, or executed, or at a time at which it was not made, signed, sealed, or executed. 2. The court held that the prosecution of the petitioners was an abuse of the process of the court because the complaint petition was filed with an oblique motive to harass the petitioners rather than to punish them for any criminal offense.
Final Decision: The court allowed both applications filed by the petitioners and quashed the prosecution against them.
NAGENDRA RAI, J.
1. Both the above applications arise out of the same matter and have been heard together and as such they are being disposed of by this common judgment.
2. Vijay Kumar Thakur, Lecturer in post graduate department of History, Patna University, is the petitioner in Cr. Misc. No. 8437 of 1986 and Shyam Bihari Singh and Rajiva Nandan Prasad, both retired University Professor and Head of the Departments of History, Magadh University, Bodh Gaya are petitioners in Cr. Misc. No. 9013 of 1988. The petitioners in both the applications have challenged the order, dated 26-5-1986 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna in complaint case No. 267(C) 1989 taking cognizance under Sections 465, 468, 489 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. Shorn of all the details, the complainants case is that he is the Joint Convenor of Bihar Young Historian Group, an organization for fighting for academic freedom and for preservation of the reputation of the leading Historians of the nation. Late Dr. K. K. Dutta was a leading and eminent Historian of this country and was also known as reputed Historian all over the world. He wrote book known as "Biography of Kuer Singh and Amar Singh" which was published by K. P. Jaishwal Research Institute. The aforesaid book was widely appreciated by the all reputed Historians. The said book was reprinted by the aforesaid Institute in the year 1984 at that time when Shri P. N. Ojha was the officiating Director of the Institute and in reprint of the said book the name of its author Dr. K. K. Dutta was deleted and in his place the name of Sri P. N. Ojha, officiating Director of the Institute, was printed in the middle of the cover page of the book giving an impression that he (P. N.Ojha) was author of the book. Even in the preface of the book nothing was stated about the authorship of the book. The aforesaid action of Sri P. N. Ojha led to protest by the Young Historian Group and its members and others. The question were also raised at the floor of the Assembly with regard to the aforesaid misdeed done by Sri P. N. Ojha.
4. The further case of the complainant is that Sri Ojha is in the habit of doing academic piracy and the other accused persons named in the complaint petition numbering fourteen working as Lecturers and Professors in the History Departments of different Universities use to get undue benefit and patronage from Sri Ojha. When the persons including the members of the Young Historian Group starts protesting against the aforesaid act of Sri Ojha in deleting the name of Sri Dutta and printing his name in place of Sri K. K. Dutta, the accused persons including the petitioners conspiracy together and intentionally and knowingly made a false document in the nature of statement said to be signed by 18 eminent Historians. The said false document created by the accused persons contained derogatory and defamatory remarks against Dr. V. C. Chaudhary, a Historian and the same was published in the daily local English newspaper "The Indian Nation; on 25-7-85 with the Heading "Historians urge C. M. to prevent appointment." It was stated therein inter alia, that they saw nothing wrong so far as the reputation of late Dr. K. K. Dutta and his work biography of Kuer Singh and Amar Singh is concerned. After the publication of the aforesaid news two of the signatories of the said statement Dr. 0. P. Jaiswal and Dr. R. Prasad contradicted the above item and asserted that they did not sign the above memorandum published in. the Indian Nation. The publication of the news item and denial of the two signatures raised suspicion in the mind of the members of the Bihar, Young Historian Group that accused persons have entered into conspiracy and committed the forgery and got the statement published in the newspaper to protect Sri P. N. Ojha who had benefited the accused persons by digerent means and ways. The members enquired into the matter and thereafter legal notices were sent on behalf of Young Historian Gro
