Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Forgery Definition and Main Points According to the Supreme Court and judicial interpretations, a person commits forgery if they dishonestly or fraudulently make or execute a document with the intent to cause it to be believed that the document was made or executed by a different person, or with the authority of someone else who knows it was not made or executed by them. This includes making a false document in the name of a fictitious person or a deceased person, intending to deceive others ["Vikram Ashokbhai Solanki VS State Of Gujarat - Gujarat"], ["Pavnari Devi VS State of U. P. - Allahabad"], ["Pavnari Devi VS State of U. P. - Allahabad"], ["K. Mohammed Ali VS Chinnamma K. M. - Kerala"], ["Milan Saini VS Kamal Kumar - Delhi"], ["K.M.Ravinthar vs The Inspector of Police - Madras"], ["K.THULASINGAMOORTHY vs THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE - Madras"], ["Kishori Prasad Sao VS State of Jharkhand - Jharkhand"], ["Pushpa Omprakash Mantri vs State of Maharashtra, Through Police Station Officer, Police Station Gadge Nagar, Amravati City - Bombay"], ["MALAK SINGH AND ANOTHER vs STATE OF PUNJAB - Punjab and Haryana"], ["Malak Singh @ Malik Singh VS State of Punjab - Punjab and Haryana"], ["K.THULASINGAMOORTHY Vs THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE - Madras"], ["Azam Khan VS State of Jharkhand - Jharkhand"], ["Inder Mohan Guleria VS State of Himachal Pradesh - Himachal Pradesh"], ["MALAK SINGH AND ANOTHER vs STATE OF PUNJAB - Punjab and Haryana"], ["SAHEER MUHAMMED vs STATE OF KERALA - Kerala"], ["Ganapathy vs The Inspector of Police - Madras"], ["Ganapathy vs The Inspector of Police - Madras"], ["ABID HUSSAIN s/o ABDUL GANI VS STATE OF M. P. - Madhya Pradesh"].
Execution in Own Name and Presence The case of Mohammed Ibrahim v. State of Bihar clarifies that merely executing a document in one's own name, even if claiming property not owned by the individual, does not automatically constitute forgery. The key factor is whether the act involves creating or signing a false document with the intent to deceive or defraud. For example, the Court held that the execution of a sale deed in one's own name regarding property not owned by the person does not constitute making a false document or forgery, unless there is evidence of fraudulent intent or misrepresentation ["Inder Mohan Guleria VS State of Himachal Pradesh - Himachal Pradesh"].
Distinction Between Making and Executing a Document It is important to differentiate between making (creating) a false document and executing (signing or putting into effect) one. The Court has observed that a person who merely executes a document in their own name, without the fraudulent intent to deceive or create a false impression that the document was made by someone else, does not commit forgery ["Vikram Ashokbhai Solanki VS State Of Gujarat - Gujarat"], ["K.THULASINGAMOORTHY vs THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE - Madras"].
Main Insight The primary insight from the case law is that simply executing a document in one's own name or being present for its execution does not amount to forgery unless there is proof of dishonest intent to create a false or fraudulent document. The act of signing or executing alone, without fraudulent purpose, does not fulfill the criteria of forgery under Section 464 of the Indian Penal Code ["Vikram Ashokbhai Solanki VS State Of Gujarat - Gujarat"], ["Pavnari Devi VS State of U. P. - Allahabad"], ["Inder Mohan Guleria VS State of Himachal Pradesh - Himachal Pradesh"].
Conclusion:It is not automatically true that a person who executes a document in their own name or is present during its execution commits forgery. Forgery requires dishonest or fraudulent intent to create or sign a false document, not merely the act of executing or being present during execution ["Vikram Ashokbhai Solanki VS State Of Gujarat - Gujarat"], ["Pavnari Devi VS State of U. P. - Allahabad"], ["Inder Mohan Guleria VS State of Himachal Pradesh - Himachal Pradesh"].
In property disputes and legal transactions, questions about document authenticity often arise. A common misconception is that simply signing a sale deed or any document claiming property as your own—even if it's disputed—automatically amounts to forgery. But is it true that, as clarified in Mohammed Ibrahim v. State of Bihar, a person who executes a document in their own name (or is present for its execution) does not commit forgery? This blog dives deep into the ruling, Indian Penal Code (IPC) provisions, and supporting cases to provide clarity.
We'll break down the legal principles, key takeaways, exceptions, and practical advice. Note: This is general information based on judicial precedents and not specific legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for your situation.
Forgery is defined under Section 463 IPC as making any false document or false electronic record with intent to cause damage or injury, to support any claim, or to cause wrongful gain. Section 464 further elaborates on a 'false document':
Simply put, forgery typically involves impersonation (pretending to be someone else) or falsely claiming authority from another. Mere dishonesty in claiming ownership, without these elements, doesn't qualify. Sheila Sebastian VS R. Jawaharaj - 2018 5 Supreme 239
The Supreme Court in Mohammed Ibrahim v. State of Bihar addressed whether executing sale deeds for property not belonging to the executant constituted forgery. The court held:
When a person executes a document conveying a property describing it as his, there are two possibilities. The first is that he bona fide believes that the property actually belongs to him. The second is that he may be dishonestly or fraudulently claiming it to be his even though he knows that it is not his property. But to fall under first category of ‘false documents’, it is not sufficient that a document has been made or executed dishonestly or fraudulently. There is a further requirement that it should have been made with the intention of causing it to be believed that such document was made or executed by, or by the authority of a person, by whom or by whose authority he knows that it was not made or executed. Sheila Sebastian VS R. Jawaharaj - 2018 5 Supreme 239
Key findings:- Executing a document in one's own name, without claiming to be someone else or asserting false authority, does not make it a false document under Section 464.- No forgery if there's no impersonation or false claim of authorization. Sheila Sebastian VS R. Jawaharaj - 2018 5 Supreme 239- The court quashed proceedings, emphasizing: Execution of such a document (claiming property which is not his) is not execution of a false document as defined under Section 464 of the Code. If what is executed is not a false document, there is no forgery. Sheila Sebastian VS R. Jawaharaj - 2018 5 Supreme 239
This ruling distinguishes between fraudulent claims of ownership (civil issue) and forgery (criminal, requiring specific intent to deceive as another).
Multiple High Court decisions echo this Supreme Court stance, applying it to quash baseless forgery charges.
In one case, the court noted:
It was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mohammed Ibrahim versus State of Bihar 2009 (8) SCC 751 that the prosecution is required to prove that the accused had forged a document by creating a false document... A false document is when a document is executed claiming to be executed by someone else or authorised by someone else. Om Chand vs State of H.P. - 2025 Supreme(HP) 202
Another ruling clarified:
In Mohammed Ibrahim & Others Versus State of Bihar & Another report in (2009) 8 SCC 751, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that the condition precedent for an offence of forgery is making of a false document... There is no allegation that petitioner altered or tampered a document or he obtained a document by practising deception... nor... made or executed a document claiming to be of someone else or authorized by someone else. Ram Lakhan Sahni, Son of Late Chhatu Sahni VS State of Bihar - 2017 Supreme(Pat) 1420
Here, signing as 'Secretary of Society' in one's own name, amid a bona fide dispute, didn't attract Section 465 IPC. Proceedings were quashed due to lack of prima facie forgery ingredients. Ram Lakhan Sahni, Son of Late Chhatu Sahni VS State of Bihar - 2017 Supreme(Pat) 1420
Similarly:
The Honourable Supreme Court in Mohammed Ibrahim and others Vs.State of Bihar and another (2009-8-SCC-751)... held that if a person executes a document without impersonating another person, then the said document could not be defined as false document and therefore, the ingredients of forgery is not attracted. MCR. Vyas VS Inspector of Police, CBI Anti Corruption Branch - 2014 Supreme(Mad) 2295
In property impersonation claims, courts stress proving the executant wasn't the real person:
Therefore, in order to commit the forgery he must make signs or execute a document... as if he is the same person who was the original person who ought to have executed that document. Bheemesh @ Bheemanna S/o J. Lakshman VS State of Karnataka by Devanahalli Police Station - 2019 Supreme(Kar) 1832
Without evidence of non-existence or impersonation, no forgery. Bheemesh @ Bheemanna S/o J. Lakshman VS State of Karnataka by Devanahalli Police Station - 2019 Supreme(Kar) 1832
While the general rule protects own-name execution, exceptions apply:- Impersonation: Pretending to be another person (e.g., signing as 'Sonnappa S/o Nanjappa' when not). Bheemesh @ Bheemanna S/o J. Lakshman VS State of Karnataka by Devanahalli Police Station - 2019 Supreme(Kar) 1832- False Authority Claim: Executing 'on behalf of' someone else without authorization. Sheila Sebastian VS R. Jawaharaj - 2018 5 Supreme 239- Tampering or Deception: Altering documents or obtaining signatures fraudulently. Om Chand vs State of H.P. - 2025 Supreme(HP) 202- Electronic Records: Similar principles apply, but must prove falsity. Sheila Sebastian VS R. Jawaharaj - 2018 5 Supreme 239
If these elements exist, Sections 467 (forgery of valuable security), 471 (using forged document), or 420 (cheating) may apply. Always examine intent and claims. Madhukar Son of Amruta Patil VS Parashram Son of Yeduji Sonune - 2017 0 Supreme(Bom) 1781
| Aspect | Forgery? | Reason ||--------|----------|--------|| Executes in own name, claims own property | No | No impersonation/false authority Sheila Sebastian VS R. Jawaharaj - 2018 5 Supreme 239 || Impersonates owner | Yes | False document under Sec 464 || Claims false power of attorney | Yes | Intent to deceive as authorized by another || Bona fide belief in ownership | No | Lacks fraudulent execution intent |
The Mohammed Ibrahim v. State of Bihar ruling provides a clear safeguard: executing a document in your own name typically does not constitute forgery under IPC Sections 463-464, absent impersonation or false authority claims. This prevents criminalizing every disputed property transaction. Supported by numerous cases, it underscores the need for precise ingredients in forgery prosecutions. Sheila Sebastian VS R. Jawaharaj - 2018 5 Supreme 239Om Chand vs State of H.P. - 2025 Supreme(HP) 202Ram Lakhan Sahni, Son of Late Chhatu Sahni VS State of Bihar - 2017 Supreme(Pat) 1420
Disclaimer: Legal outcomes depend on facts. This overview is for informational purposes—seek professional advice for your case.
#ForgeryLaw, #IPC464, #IndianLaw
Ibrahim and Others V/s State of Bihar and Others reported in reported in 2010(1) GLH 184, the contents of FIR are not satisfied. ... Explanation 2 - The making of a false document in the name of a fictitious person, intending it to be believed that the document was made by a real person, or in the name of a deceased person, intending it to be ....
Explanation 2 - The making of a false document in the name of a fictitious person, intending it to be believed that the document was made by a real person, or in the name of a deceased person, intending it to be believed that the document was made by the person in his lifetime, ... Ibrahim and others vs. State of Bihar (supra....
Explanation 2 - The making of a false document in the name of a fictitious person, intending it to be believed that the document was made by a real person, or in the name of a deceased person, intending it to be believed that the document was made ... document was made or executed by some other person, or by the authority o....
It is not necessary that the document should be published or made in the name of a really existing person (vide explanation 2). But it must either appear on its face to be, in fact, on which, if true, would possess some legal validity. ... The first is where a person dishonestly or fraudulently makes or executes a document with the intention of causing #HL_START....
It is observed in Mohd. Ibrahim v. State of Bihar [Mohd. Ibrahim v. ... , or with intent to commit fraud or that fraud may be committed, commits forgery. ... by some other person of the same name, commits forgery. ... That the true name of the SPA-holder is not Siri Chand Saini but Shri Chand Saini; that his father's #HL_START....
or executes a document with the intention of causing it to be believed that such document was made or executed by fraudulently makes or executes a document with the was made or executed by, or by the authority of a person, by whom or by whose authority he knows that it was not p style ... Ibrahi....
As per the observation of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mohammed Ibrahim(supra) in paragraph No.14, 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 ... The first is where a person dishonestly or#HL_E....
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 ... Explanation 2 - The....
R.Jawaharaj and another), where the judgment reported in (2009) 8 SCC 751 (Mohammed Ibrahim and Others ..vs.. State of Bihar and another) was considered and observed that “ a charge of forgery cannot be imposed on a person, who is not maker of the same. ... whether it was a cheating against the first purchaser or second purchaser. The Hon'ble Supreme Court answered this question in para-20 of the judgment reported in (2009) 8 SCC 7....
NEPC India Ltd., and others), (2009) 8 SCC 751 (Mohammed Ibrahim and Others ..vs.. State of Bihar and another), (2009) 15 SCC 643 (Mir Nagvi Askari ..vs.. ... State of Bihar and another) was considered and observed that “ a charge of forgery cannot be imposed on a person, who is not maker of the same. Making of a document is different, than causing it to be made. ... to....
17. It was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mohammed Ibrahim versus State of Bihar 2009 (8) SCC 751 that the prosecution is required to prove that the accused had forged a document by creating a false document to establish the offence of forgery. A false document is when a document is executed claiming to be executed by someone else or authorised by someone else or a document is tempered or signatures are obtained by practising deception. It was observed:- 10.1) The first is where a person dishonestly or fraudulently makes or executes a document with the intention....
Then only the definition of ‘forgery’ is attracted. Therefore, in order to commit the forgery he must make signs or execute a document or part of a document as if he is the same person who was the original person who ought to have executed that document. In this case, no such person or no such documents are produced before the Court to show that actually Sonnappa S/o Ningappa was not in existence and he has not actually executed the said document so as to come to a conclusion that some other person has executed the said document impersonating the said Sonnappa S/o Nanjappa.....
This case does not relate to any false electronic record. 11. In Mohammed Ibrahim & Others Versus State of Bihar & Another report in (2009) 8 SCC 751, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that the condition precedent for an offence of forgery is making of a false document (or false electronic record or part thereof).
9. Let us first consider whether the complaint averments even assuming to be true make out the ingredients of the offences punishable either under Section 467 or Section 471 of Penal Code. In respect of the allegations of attestation of declaration forms by A2, A7 and preparation of form 16 by A5, the same would not attract an offence of forgery. The Honourable Supreme Court in Mohammed Ibrahim and others Vs.State of Bihar and another (2009-8-SCC-751) in paragraphs 9 to 17 and 23 to 28 dealt with the ingredients of forgery and held that if a person executes a document without imper....
In respect of the allegations of attestation of declaration forms by A2, A7 and preparation of form 16 by A5, the same would not attract an offence of forgery. The Honourable Supreme Court in Mohammed Ibrahim and others Vs.State of Bihar and another (2009-8-SCC-751) in paragraphs 9 to 17 and 23 to 28 dealt with the ingredients of forgery and held that if a person executes a document without impersonating another person, then the said document could not be defined as false document and therefore, the ingredients of forgery is not attracted against the person who executed the documen....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
