Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
AMIT SHARMA
Deneth Piumakshi Wedarachchige – Appellant
Versus
State (NCT of Delhi) – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background and basis of the case against the petitioner. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments concerning the validity of charges against the petitioner. (Para 5) |
JUDGMENT :
AMIT SHARMA, J.
1. The present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, [For short, ‘CrPC’], read with Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking following prayers: -
“(a) Quash the Order dt. 20.10.2022 passed by the Ld. ASJ-06, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi in Cr. Revision 327 of 2020 dismissing the Revision Petition filed by the Petitioner; and thus discharge the Petitioner from the proceedings in Cr. Case No. 45646 of 2016, emanating out of FIR No. 141/2009 registered at P.S. IGI Airport; and (b) Pass any other or further order(s)/direction(s) which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the larger interest of justice.”
BACKGROUND
2. The case of the prosecution against the present petitioner, as per the status report dated 19.09.2023 authored by Insp. Yashpal Singh, SHO/PS IGI Airport, is as under: -
“…….
2. Succinctly stated the case of the present matter is that on 02.04.2009, a complaint was received at PS IGI Airport from the complainant Sh
The judgment establishes that mere alteration of a passport without fraudulent intent does not constitute forgery under IPC sections relevant to cheating and document alteration.
The court emphasized that criminal proceedings should not be misused for personal vendettas, requiring clear evidence of criminal intent for prosecution under IPC.
(1) Offences of ‘forgery’ and ‘cheating’ intersect and converge, as act of forgery is committed with intent to deceive or cheat an individual. (2) Not every unlawful act automatically qualifies as ‘....
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....
(1) Cheating and forgery – While expert opinion is not mandatory, nevertheless when authorship is central to establish guilt of accused and by direct evidence it is not demonstrated to show that alle....
The court upheld the necessity for prima facie evidence when framing charges, emphasizing that mere allegations are insufficient without supporting documentation.
The court upheld conviction for forgery despite the absence of economic loss, emphasizing harm to institutional integrity as sufficient for fraud under Section 465 IPC.
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
