Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.
Rekha Kumari, d/o Chunilal Mahto – Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand – Respondent
Cr.M.P. No. 561 of 2022
Decided on : 19-06-2024
[CRIMINAL LAW] - [FORGERY AND CHEATING] - [IPC SECTIONS 420, 467, 468, 471] - [The court discussed the legal provisions under Sections 420, 467, 468, and 471 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), emphasizing that for a charge of forgery, the accused must be the maker of the false document. The court interpreted the necessity of proving deception and dishonest intention for Section 420, and the requirement of forgery for Sections 467 and 471. The court concluded that the petitioner colluded in the forgery of a B.Ed. degree certificate, thus affirming the cognizance taken by the Chief Judicial Magistrate.]
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner obtained a B.Ed. degree certificate from a college that was fraudulently affiliated to a private university, despite never attending the college. She used this forged certificate to secure a teaching position, leading to an FIR being lodged against her for forgery and cheating.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner had indeed colluded in the forgery of the B.Ed. certificate, as she had not attended the required classes and had paid a significant sum for the fraudulent degree. The court held that the allegations against her were substantiated and that the prosecution had sufficient grounds to proceed.
Issues: Whether the petitioner could be held liable for the offences of forgery and cheating under the IPC, given her claims of ignorance and being duped by others.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reiterated that for a charge of forgery, the accused must be the maker of the false document. However, collusion in the act of forgery can also lead to liability. The court emphasized the need for proving deception and dishonest intention for Section 420, and that the absence of physical attendance at the college negated any defense of ignorance.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the criminal miscellaneous petition, affirming the order of cognizance taken by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, and allowed the criminal proceedings to continue.
JUDGMENT :
ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.
1. Heard the parties.
2. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with a prayer to quash the FIR and the entire criminal proceedings including the order dated 18.09.2021 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ramgarh in Ramgarh P.S. Case No. 57 of 2020, corresponding to G.R. No. 933 of 2021 whereby and where under the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ramgarh has taken cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of Indian Penal Code.
3. The brief fact of the case is that the petitioner obtained a B.Ed. degree certificate purportedly awarded by the Jodhpur National University for prosecuting a course of one year B.Ed. degree from Marwar B.Ed. College, Jodhpur. Initially in the year 2008, Marwar B.Ed. College was given recognition by the N.R.C., with Marwar B.Ed. College, Jodhpur is affiliated to the University of Jaipur. Subsequently, by fraudulent means, affiliation of Marwar B.Ed. College, Jodhpur was changed to that of Jodhpur National University. Jodhpur National University is a private university which cannot be an affiliated university. The petitioner never went to the Jodhpur in Rajasthan for prosecuting the B.Ed. degree course where Marwar B.Ed. college is situated but by obtaining fraudulent means she has forged and fabricated a degree purported to be a valid degree of B.Ed. and submitted that same and on the basis of such forged degree has got herself appointed as Assistant Teacher for Khortha language through Staff Selection Commission, Jharkhand in upgraded High School, Marar, Ramgarh. After verification the forgery committed by the petitioner was found out and this FIR was lodged.
4. After investigation of the case, police found the allegation against the petitioner to be true and submitted charge sheet against her for having committed the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of Indian Penal Code.
5. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ramgarh upon receiving the charge sheet has taken cognizance of the said offences vide order dated 18.09.2021 in Ramgarh P.S. Case No. 57 of 2020.
6. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner by relying upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Sheila Sebastian vs. R. Jawaharaj & Anr. Etc. in Criminal Appeal Nos.359-360 of 2020 dated 11.05.2018 (2018 INSC 494) that inter alia it has been observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in paragraph no. 25 that a charge of forgery cannot be imposed on a person who is not the maker of the same and for constituting the offence punishable under Section 464 of Indian Penal Code, it is imperative that a false document is made and the accused person is the maker of the same, otherwise the accused person is not liable for the offence of forgery.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner next relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Mariam Fasihuddin & Anr. vs. State by Adugodi Police Station & Anr. reported in 2024 INSC 49 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in paragraph no.11 has observed that in order to attract the provisions of Section 420 of Indian Penal Code, the prosecution has to not only prove that the accused has cheated someone but also that by doing so, he has dishonestly induced the person who is cheated to deliver property. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India also reiterated the three components of the offence punishable under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code are (i) deception of any person (ii) fraudulently or dishonestly inducing that person to deliver any property to any person and (iii) mean rea or dishonest intention of the accused at time of making an inducement.
8. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that as none of the ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code is made out against the petitioner hence, the learned Chief J
The court emphasized that ignorance of law is not an excuse, and a magistrate cannot modify charges during cognizance, affirming the need for proper authority in educational certification.
Forgery under Section 463 is complete upon the creation of a false document with the requisite fraudulent intent, regardless of actual loss or gain. Furthermore, an appellate court's power to impose ....
Point of Law : Power conferred under Section 482 of the Code to quash criminal proceedings for non-compoundable offences under Section 320 of Code can be exercised having overwhelmingly and predomina....
The continuation of criminal proceedings against an individual is an abuse of process when substantiated evidence negates the charges, as affirmed by the High Court.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of proving beyond reasonable doubt the essential ingredients of the offences punishable under sections 420, 468, and 471 of 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
