For an offense of forgery to be established, there must be a false document made with criminal intent to cause harm; minor corrections do not suffice.

JUDGMENT :

PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA, J.

Heard Mr. A.M. Bora, the learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. R.J. Das, the counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Sarma, the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Assam (Respondent No.1) as well as Mr. A. Phukan, the learned counsel representing the Respondent No.2.

2. This is an application under Section 482 of the CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE (CrPC) praying for quashing the criminal proceedings of C.R. No.4822 of 2022 pending in the court of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kamrup(M), Guwahati.

3. Late Jatin Hazarika was admitted at Nemcare Hospital at Guwahati. The petitioner Dr. Farhin Iqbal was working in that hospital as a Cardiologist. Dr. Farhin Iqbal had conducted ECHO-Cardiogram upon late Jatin Hazarika and gave some reports. Thereafter, late Jatin Hazarika was shifted to a hospital outside Assam where he breathed his last.

4. After the demise of late Jatin Hazarika, the Respondent No.2 being his daughter, had lost all those ECHO-Cardiogram reports. Therefore, she approached the petitioner for providing her duplicate copies. Accordingly, duplicate copies of the ECHO-Cardiogram reports were given to the Respondent No.2.

5. This time, it came to the notice of the Respondent No.2 that the ECHO- Cardiogram reports prepared by Dr. Farhin Iqbal had some corrections. For example, in the ECHO-Cardiogram reports, being Call Centre No.88 22 201 201 showed that the LVEF (Teich) 42%. But in the duplicate copy given to the respondent no.2, the 42% was made 43% by hand. Similarly, in Call Centre No.88 22 201 201 in the LVEF (Teich) 55% but it was made 55.1%. The correction was made by hand. There were some other corrections also.

6. Therefore, the Respondent No.2 filed an FIR before police alleging forgery committed by Dr. Farhin Iqbal. After investigation, police filed a Final Report stating that no materials could be collected against the present petitioner.

7. The Respondent No.2 filed a petition before the Judicial Magistrate First Class praying for sending the case to police of Bhangagarh P.S. for further investigation. Accordingly, the matter was sent back to Bhangagarh Police Station. Again, police filed a Final Report. Therefore, the C.R. No.4822 of 2022 came into being.

8. Mr. Bora has submitted that the definition of forgery as contained in Section 463 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE says that whoever makes a false document or false electronic record or part of the document or electronic record with intention 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 intent to commit fraud or that fraud may be committed, commits the offence of forgery. According to Mr. Bora, treatment to late Jatin Hazarika was provided on the basis of the original ECHO-Reports. After the demise of late Jatin Hazarika, those duplicate copies were given by the petitioner where there were some handwritten corrections of datas. Mr. Bora has submitted that those ECHO-Cardiogram reports given for the second time in duplicate had no potential to commit any harm to the society or to any person.

9. Mr. Bora has relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court that was delivered in Mohd. Ibrahim v. State of Bihar, (2009) 8 SCC 751. Paragraphs 13, 14, 15 and 16 are quoted as under:

“13. The condition precedent for an offence under Sections 467 and 471 is forgery. The condition precedent for forgery is making a false document (or false electronic record or part thereof). This case does not relate to any false electronic record.