Forging signatures on a vakalat does not attract an offence under Section 467 of the Indian Penal Code.

Headnote:
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE - SECTION 482 - QUASHING OF FIR - FORGERY OF VAKALAT - OFFENCE UNDER SECTION 467 IPC NOT ATTRACTED - PROCEDURE UNDER SECTION 41-A CR.P.C. TO BE FOLLOWED
Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, an advocate, was accused of forging a vakalat and prosecuting a case without the knowledge of the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent filed a complaint against the petitioner, alleging offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, and 471 of the Indian Penal Code.
Finding of the Court:

The court held that forging signatures on a vakalat does not attract an offence under Section 467 of the Indian Penal Code, as a vakalat is not a valuable security or a will as required under that section. The court also directed the Investigating Officer to follow the procedure laid down under Section 41-A Cr.P.C. and the guidelines formulated by the Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar.
Issues: Whether forging signatures on a vakalat attracts an offence under Section 467 of the Indian Penal Code.
Ratio Decidendi: A vakalat is not a valuable security or a will as required under Section 467 of the Indian Penal Code. Therefore, forging signatures on a vakalat does not attract an offence under that section.
Final Decision: The court quashed the FIR against the petitioner.

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR OF TELANGANA AT HYDI*EABITIE TIF,S^DIY THE TENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAI.TO NruO iWCUTY THREE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 312 AF 2A23 Between;

Bobbala Keshava Reddy, S/o Laxma Reddy, "..PETITIONERYACCUSED AI,]D NO. 1

1 *T i,h ,e t? iS .ata bt ae d o , f TT ee iala ngn aq na an a _ , s R .fBu[y its Pi:blic Prosecutcr High Court, 2 uSa cr cn a A V gre icn uk ta tuta r eR Ra /m o a Nn aa n R che ad rd ipy e tS a /o v, iN rfJa gra Ey l a Mn o R tl"e *ld r"d roy lA r,g ne ,,d " na db ao t,u t y 4 a0 d ay de ra irs.

Dncngir District ...RESPONDEN'rS Petition under section 482 of cr.p.c praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminil petition, the High court may tre pieasecl to quash the proceedings against the petitioner/Accused No.'l in FIR No.299!2A22 dated 26-08-2022 ol p S. Bhongir Torvn, Rachakonda ()om:-n issicnerate l.A. NO: 1 OF 2023 Petition under Section 482 o'f Cr.P.C pr-aying that in the circumslances stateci r:-r the ly'lemorandum cf Grounds of Crirni:,al Petition, the High Court may be pleaseci to dispense with filing of certified copy of FIR No.299/2022 dated26- O8-2C22 of P.S. Bhongir Town, Rachakonda Commissionerate, pending disposal of the above Criminal Petition tA.-NAr :-QE-2923 Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stateci in the lvlemorandr-rm of Grounds of criminal Petition, the High court may be tc stay ali flrrther proceedings including arrest of the L-ieasei Petiticners/Accused No.i in FIR No.299 12A22 daled 26-08-2022 of P.s. Bhongir Town. Rachakonda commissionerate, penoirrg clisposal cf the above criminal Petition -lhls Petition ccmjng cn for hearing. upon peruslng the Memorandum of Grounds of Crinrinal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri M.A. K. fUUKFIEED .Advocate for the Petitioners and the Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Telangana on behalf of the Respondent No 1 and None Appeared for the Resportdent No. 2 The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRT JUSTICE K.SURENDER CRIMINAL PETITION No.312 OF 2023 ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is liled under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.') by the petitioner/Al to quash FIR No.299/2022 pendtng on the lile ol Bhongir Town Police Station, Rachakonda Commissionerate,. The offences alleged against him are under Sections 42O, 467, 468, 47 I of the Indian Penal Code.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent - State. Perused the record.

3. The case of the 2"d respondent is that without his knowledge, Vakalat' was signed and the petitioner who is an Advocate was prosecuting the said case, for the said reason, complaint was fiied against the petitioner.

{ (

Even assuming that the \zakalat'was not signed by the !"a respondent, forging signatures on the lakalat' will not attract an offence under Section 467 of Indian Penal Code, for the reason of the 'vakalat' not being a valuable securit-y or 'will' as required under Sectior,s 467 of IPC.

5. For the said reason and since the punishment prescribed for the other offences alleged against the petitioner are up to seven years, this Court deems it appropriate to direct the Investigating Oflicer in FIR No.299 12022 pending on the file of Bhongir Town Police Station, Rachakonda Commissionerate, to fo11or.r, the procedure laid dou,n under Section 4 1 -A Cr. P. C and also the guidclines fornr ulated by the Hon ble Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar u. Stdte of Biharrscrupulously. The petitioner/A1 shall co operate with the lnvestigating Officer by furnishing information and documents as sought by him in concluding the investigation.

6. Accordingly, Criminal Petition is disposed off.

Miscellaneous applications pcnding, if any, shall stand clo sed.

t E k-c W3 Sd/. R. KARTHIKEYAN [rortt) ASSISTANT REG16TRAR (

//TRUE COPY/I SECTIONbFFICER l'o, TheJuciicialFirstClasslvlagistrateBhonfirYa

Click Here to Read the rest of this document