Back
2016 Supreme(UK) 367
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
U.C. Dhyani, J.
Girdhari Lal Sahu - Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand & others - Respondents
Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 967 of 2016
Decided On : 04-08-2016
For the Petitioner: Mr. Arvind Vashisth, Mr. K.R. Gazi.
For the Respondent: Mr. K.S. Rautela, Mr. Milind Raj.
The main legal point established was the need for careful evaluation of facts, discretion in granting anticipatory bail, and the last resort nature of arrest, as emphasized in Arnesh Kumar and Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre cases.
Headnote:
Forgery - Criminal Writ Petition - IPC 420, 467, 468, 471, 506 - Summary of Acts and Sections
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought to quash an FIR lodged against him for offences under IPC Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 506. The FIR alleged forgery and cheating in a land transaction.
Finding of the Court:
The Court analyzed the allegations and found that the offences under Sections 420 and 506 IPC were prima facie made out, but questioned the presence of forgery and cheating elements. The Court also emphasized the need for careful evaluation of facts and the discretion to grant anticipatory bail.
Issues: The issues revolved around the prima facie evidence of forgery and cheating, the application of Section 41 Cr.P.C for arrest, and the balance between individual and societal interests.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court relied on the legal principles established in Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar and another, and Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs. State of Maharashtra, emphasizing the need for careful evaluation of facts, the discretion in granting anticipatory bail, and the last resort nature of arrest.
Final Decision: The petitioner was directed to contact the Investigating Officer and not leave the State of Uttarakhand without prior permission. The criminal writ petition was disposed of summarily at the admission stage.
U.C. Dhyani, J.
By means of present criminal writ petition, the petitioner seeks following reliefs, among others:
(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the first information report dated 26.07.2016 in FIR no. 201 of 2016, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 506 IPC, at police station Kichcha, District Udham Singh Nagar.
(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no. 2 not to arrest and not to harass the petitioner in FIR no. 201 of 2016, under Section 420, 467, 468, 471, 506 IPC at police station Kichcha, District Udham Singh Nagar.
2. An FIR was lodged by respondent no. 3 against the petitioner on 26.07.2016 for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 506 IPC. The relevant portion of said FIR reads as under:
“…Khasra no. 107 in Village Chutki Deveria is recorded in my (reporter’s) name. An agreement to sell was entered into between the applicant (read informant/reporter) and G.L. Sahu s/o Ram Swaroop, r/o Brajanand Vihar, Lalpur, R.T.O. Road, Haldwani, in which it was agreed that the sale deed will only be executed between the applicant and G.L. Sahu. G.L. Sahu concealed this fact from the applicant that the sale deed cannot be executed in his (G.L. Sahu’s) name. According to the agreement to sell, out of four portions, first two portions (of land) were to be registered in the name of Mahendra Singh Bisht. It was agreed orally, as well as on the basis of agreement to sell that plotting will be done on the said land, and all the conditions will be fulfilled accordingly. But, G.L. Sahu did not fulfill any of the conditions. He even sold the passage etc. to other persons and got the same registered in other’s favour. G.L. Sahu himself is the witness of the sale deed, which was executed by him in favour of Mahendra Singh Bisht, Girish Chandra Joshi. G.L. Sahu has cheated and committed forgery in relation to the transaction of the land. Inspite of the expiry of the duration, he did not execute the sale deed. Many a people came to take possession over that land which was sold by G.L. Sahu in applicant (reporter’s) favour. A few names are –Dinesh Kumar, Mahesh Gangwar and Manoj Sharma. G.L. Sahu has also threatened him to vacate the land….”.
3. Section 467 IPC deals with forgery of valuable security, will, etc. The same is being reproduced here-in-below for convenience:
“467. Whoever forges a document with purports to be a valuable security or a will, or an authority to adopt a son, or which purports to given authority to any person to make or transfer any valuable security, or to receive the principal, interest or dividends thereon, or to receive or deliver any money, movable property, or valuable security, or any document purporting to be an acquittance or receipt acknowledging the payment of money, or an acquittance or receipt for the delivery of any movable property or valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.”
4. Further, Section 468 IPC deals with forgery for purpose of cheating, which Section is being reproduced here-in-below for convenience:
“468. Whoever commits forgery, intending that the document or electronic record forged shall be used for the purpose of cheating, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.”
5. Section 420 IPC speaks about cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property. The same reads as under:
“420. Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to
