The central legal point established is that the mere act of dealing with property by legal heirs does not necessarily constitute the creation of false documents under IPC 468.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to call for the records in C.C.No.31 of 2019 on the file of the Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Land Grabbing Cases, Madurai and quash the same as against this petitioners.)

1. This Criminal Original Petition is filed to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.31 of 2019 on the file of the Special Court for Exclusive Trial and Land Grabbing Cases, Madurai.

2. The allegation in the First Information Report indicates that the petitioners 1 and 2 are the brothers and the property in question belongs to their maternal grandmother, namely, Pechiammal. She had four sons and two daughters. Out of four male legal heirs, two of them died. The petitioners are claiming right to one of the female legal heir of the said Pechiammal. Their case is that A1 is the son of one of the daughters of the said Pechiammal, A2 is the mother of A1 and A3 is the father of A1. A4 is the daughter of A5 and A6 is the daughter of A3. A7 and A8 are the sons of one another male sons of Pechiammal. A9 is the document writer, A10 is the Sub-Registrar, A11 is the purchaser of the property.

3. The crux of the allegation in the First Information Report indicates that as if the petitioners 9 to 11 herein and others by creating false documents, have sold the property for which the Sub-Registrar also registered the document. The First Information Report has been lodged against all the accused persons.

4. It is relevant to note that to attract the offence under Section 468 of IPC, it must be shown that the accused had created false documents. The very case itself indicates that some of the legal heirs have sold the property, claiming to their own. Such eventuality will not lead to a situation that they created false documents. Therefore, merely some of the co-owners have dealt with the property, the offences alleged in the First Information Report would not be attracted.

5. In this regard, it is useful to refer the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mohammed Ibrahim and others Vs. State of Bihar and another reported in (2009) 8 SCC 751. The relevant portion of the said judgment is extracted hereunder:-

“14. An analysis of section 464 of Penal Code shows that it divides false documents into three categories:

1. The first is where a person dishonestly or fraudulently makes or executes a document with the intention of causing it to be believed that such document was made or executed by some other person, or by the authority of some other person, by whom or by whose authority he knows it was not made or executed.

2. The second is where a person dishonestly or fraudulently, by cancellation or otherwise, alters a document in any material part, without lawful authority, after it has been made or executed by either himself or any other person.

3. The third is where a person dishonestly or fraudulently causes any person to sign, execute or alter a document knowing that such person could not by reason of (a) unsoundness of mind; or (b) intoxication; or (c) deception practised upon him, know the contents of the document or the nature of the alteration.

In short, a person is said to have made a `false document', if (i) he made or executed a document claiming to be someone else or authorised by someone else; or (ii) he altered or tampered a document; or (iii) he obtained a document by practicing deception, or from a person not in control of his senses.

16. There is a fundamental difference between a person executing a sale deed claiming that the property conveyed is his property, and a person executing a sale deed by impersonating the owner or falsely claiming to be authorised or empowered by the owner, to execute the deed on owner's behalf. When a person executes a document conveying a property describing it as his, there are two possibilities. The first is that he bonafide believes that the property actually belongs to him. The second is that he may be dishonestly or fraudulent