The accused must be the maker of the false document to be prosecuted for forgery, as highlighted in the Indian Penal Code and supported by the decision in Sheila Sebastian vs. R. Jawaharaj (2018) 7 SCC 581.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Shri Ishuk Ali Yusuf, learned counsel for the appellant, Shri Roshan Babu Gupta, learned counsel for the private respondent and learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. This criminal appeal has been filed by the appellant against the judgment and order dated 22.03.2022 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.11, Hardoi by which the learned court below has allowed Criminal Misc. Case No.11 of 2021, under Section 340 Cr.P.C. and directing Munsarim to lodge a complaint against the present appellant and her husband, namely, Satyapal Singh, under Sections 193, 465, 471 and 120B I.P.C. within 15 days before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hardoi.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that respondent No.2 lodged false First Information Report against the husband of the appellant and her family members as Case Crime No.0267 of 2017, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 452, 302, 504 and 506 I.P.C., Police Station Kachhauna, District Hardoi. After investigation of the above case, charge-sheet was filed against some other persons and final report was also filed in favour of husband of appellant, and thereafter, case was committed to the Court of Session, which was registered as Session Trial No.111 of 2018 (State vs. Pawan Singh and others) arising out of Case Crime No.0267 of 2017, under Sections 452, 302, 504 and 506 I.P.C., Police Station Kachhauna, District Hardoi.

4. After recording the statements of prosecution witnesses, application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was moved for summoning of husband of the appellant and court below has passed the summoning order on 03.03.2020. The said order was challenged before this Court in Criminal Revision No.428 of 2020 (Satypal Singh vs. State of U.P. and others). During the pendency of the aforesaid revision, husband of the appellant fallen ill and as per the advise, RTPCR test was conducted, vide Sample Case I.D. No.HARN0017077253, and thereafter, report was provided to him informing that he is covid positive, therefore, he must have quarantined.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that appellant moved an application before the court below and requested that no coercive measure shall be taken against her husband, but the application was rejected by the court below on 01.01.2021. As the information was also given by the Police to the court below that husband of the appellant is covid positive as per the report of S.G.P.G.I., Lucknow, therefore, date i.e. 19.01.2021 was fixed by the court below. In the meantime, husband of the appellant again gave his sample, vide Sample Case I.D. No.HARN0020983344, in which, he was reported negative and the report was generated on 22.01.2022. As there was delay in the report of the sample given on 14.01.2021, then another sample was given by the husband of the appellant, vide case ID No.UNNN0021491592 and report was generated on 27.01.2022, in which, husband of the appellant was reported negative.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that respondent No.2 and his father having long criminal history, which is mentioned in para-12 and 13 of the appeal. As the respondent No.2 has filed false cases against the husband of the appellant and her family members and only with intention to victimize the appellant and her husband, respondent No.2 filed application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. for prosecuting the appellant, her husband, Advocates and Station House Officer, Police Station Kachhauna, District Hardoi, under Sections 193, 465, 473 read with Section 120B I.P.C., which was registered by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.11, Hardoi as Criminal Misc. Case No.11 of 2021 and detailed reply was given and it was submitted that neither the appellant nor her husband have manufactured any documents as the question does not arise for second covid test of husband of the appellant after fifteen days, if he was not informed positive.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that court below has presumed that appella