Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH
Praveer Bhatnagar, J.
Smt. Priyanka - Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan and anr. - Respondents
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 2265 of 2021
Decided On : 22-09-2023
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petition against a cognizance order under section 465 ipc. (Para 1) |
| 2. investigating officer failed to verify medical certificate authenticity. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 3. lack of evidence prevents assumption of document genuineness. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 4. cognizance order quashed for lack of proof of forgery. (Para 6) |
| 5. disposition of the criminal miscellaneous petition. (Para 7) |
ORDER :
Praveer Bhatnagar, J.
This criminal miscellaneous petition is preferred against the cognizance order dated 07.02.2020 passed under Section 465 IPC against the petitioner on the Final Report submitted by the concerned police station.
2. The record of FR indicates that the concerned Investigating Officer did not verify the authenticity of the alleged medical certificates. He simply reported that the alleged certificates were obtained by father of the accused petitioner and he died during the investigation.
3. Learned trial court without exploring the authenticity of the questioned documents inferred that the alleged documents were forged and took cognizance against the petitioner under Section 465 IPC. The record did not show that the documents purported to be forged were genuine or forged. It was the duty of the Investigating Officer to get the alleged documents ascertained by the concerned Hospitals. The record (case diary) reveals that the Investigating Officer did not investigate any official of the concerned Hospitals to verify the authenticity of the alleged medical certificates. The Investigating Officer ought to have conducted the proper and essential investigation before arriving at any conclusion about the genuineness of the medical certificates. Forgery is defined under Section 463 IPC, which contemplates that:-
4. Thus it is apparent that without specific findings about the falsity or genuinity of the document it cannot be assumed that the document is genuine or false.
5. In the present case, the Investigating Officer did not collect any evidence, which characterizes that the medical certificates and fitness certificates, submitted by the petitioner before the competent authority for claiming the medical leave, were not genuine.
6. In the absence of a specific finding about the genuineness or authenticity of the alleged certificates in the investigation, the cognizance order passed by the concerned Magistrate against the petitioner, pursuing trial under Section 465 IPC, is bad in law as the facts lack the element of "false document" as defined in Section 463 IPC. Therefore, the impugned order of taking cognizance against the petitioner is quashed with the direction to the concerned Magistrate to pass a fresh order following the law.
7. With the above observation and direction, the present criminal misc. petition is disposed of.
A cognizance order under Section 465 IPC cannot be sustained without specific findings regarding the genuineness of the documents involved.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the assessment of the ingredients of forgery under the provisions of CrPC and IPC, and the requirement to establish prima facie evidence of forgery....
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.
The onus of proof that the accused brought forth a forged document with a view to cheating rested with the prosecution, and the vital link in the chain of circumstances against the accused was essent....
At the stage of challenging the FIR, no interference is generally warranted if the cognizable offence is made out, and the Investigating Officer is required to unearth the truth and find out the comm....
Cognizance of criminal charges against medical professionals requires substantial evidence; mere allegations without proof of culpability are insufficient to proceed.
The prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that a document is forged and that the accused produced it; absence of such evidence renders conviction unsustainable.
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....
Quashing of criminal proceedings due to lack of sufficient evidence and failure to consider prior relevant filings by the opposite party.
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
