The central legal point established in the judgment is that the act of forging documents to obtain a loan constitutes a criminal offence, and the court's decision emphasized the need for prosecution to deter such activities.

Ajai Lamba and Ravindra Nath Mishra-II, JJ. –

Order dated 4.3.2016 notices the gist of the issue raised by the petitioner. Order dated 4.3.2016 reads as under : -

1. This petition seeks issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing F.I.R./Case Crime No.230 of 2014, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C., Police Station Vikas Nagar, District Lucknow.

2. Gist of the allegation against the petitioner is that so as to take loan for a house, the petitioner submitted forged sale deed/ documents to the bank as security.

3. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the allegations are without any relevant basis. The entire loan amount was repaid. No Dues Certificate has already been issued vide Annexure No.2 dated 8.5.2014. The documents submitted with the bank have already been returned. Thereafter on 4.8.2015, impugned criminal proceedings have been initiated.

4. We hereby issue notice to respondent no.3, returnable on 6.4.2016, to file his affidavit, including in context of contention of the learned counsel, noted above.

5. Investigating officer shall file his affidavit after verifying the document Annexure No.3 from Sub Registrar office. The investigating officer shall also conduct an inquiry as to whether Annexure No.3 is the document that was submitted as security to the bank.

6. List this case on 6.4.2016.

7. Arrest of the petitioner shall remain stayed till the next date of listing. Petitioner shall join investigation.

8. Petitioner shall furnish all the documents to the investigating officer, by way of Registered A.D. Post."

2. Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that he has repaid the loan. No Dues Certificate has already been issued by the respondent no.4/the Bank, as is evident from Annexure No.2. The respondent-complainant Syndicate Bank has returned the papers to the petitioner. Thereafter, impugned criminal proceedings have been initiated. The proceedings be quashed.

3. This court vide above extracted order directed the investigating officer to verify document, Annexure No.3 i.e. the Sale Deed which had been pledged with the Bank for obtaining loan, from the Sub Registrar concerned.

4. In response to query of the court, counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the investigating agency, in court, which is taken on record. In para 4 to 6, it has been made clear that the petitioner committed the offence. The petitioner deposited the original Sale Deed dated 12.5.2006 with Allahabad Bank, Indira Nagar Branch, Lucknow and on the basis of the said document pledged with the bank, loan in the sum of Rs. 60 lacs has been obtained. The said original Sale Deed is still deposited with the Bank. Allahabad Bank has verified the said fact.

5. It has been further clarified that the petitioner manufactured a duplicate copy of Sale Deed dated 12.5.2006 and on the basis of the said document, obtained loan in the sum of Rs. 15 lacs from Syndicate Bank/ the complainant Branch, Kalyanpur, District Lucknow. Under the circumstance, offence has been committed.

6. We have considered the rival contentions.

7. A perusal of the impugned F.I.R. Indicates that the petitioner Santosh Kumar Sharma obtained loan in the sum of Rs. 15 lacs while pledging Sale Deed dated 12.5.2006 with Syndicate Bank. During scrutiny, it came to light that Sale Deed dated 12.5.2006 is a forged document.

8. It appears that the petitioner repaid the loan and therefore pleads that the impugned F.I.R. be quashed because money is not due to be paid in lieu of the loan obtained from the Bank.

9. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is required to consider whether the petitioner has committed offence by pledging a forged Sale Deed of a property?

10. Forgery has been defined under Section 463 I.P.C., and the provisions read as under : -

"463. Forgery. - Whoever makes any false documents or false electronic record or part of a document or electronic record, with intent to cause damage or injury, to the public o