Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CR.MA/832/2007 6/ 6 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 832 of
2007
=========================================================
ASHOK
CHATRABHUJ & 3 - Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT & 2 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
UTPAL M PANCHAL for
Applicant(s) : 1 - 3.
ASST. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for Respondent(s) :
1,
RULE NOT RECD BACK for Respondent(s) : 2,
MR MG NAGARKAR for
Respondent(s) : 3,
MR MAULIK G NANAVATI for Respondent(s) :
3,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI
Date
: 24/09/2010
ORAL
ORDER
1. Heard learned
Advocates for the petitioners. The petitioners seek quashing of the
complaint at Annexure-A , bearing I-C.R.
No.512/06, filed by respondent No.2 before Varachha Police Station,
Surat, for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 465, 467,
468, 471, 34, 506(2), 387 read with Sections 120-B and 114 of the
Indian Penal Code. The complainant has alleged that the petitioners
have systematically conspired to defeat the rights of the
complainant. Different documents were entered into between the
parties, however, to dupe the complainant, by the petitioners herein.
It is alleged that for the aforesaid purpose, the petitioners have
created false documents. It is also the allegation of the complainant
that in the above manner, the petitioners are trying to forcibly
enter into the mill / factory premises.
2. The learned Counsel
for the petitioners, at the very outset, submitted that insofar as
the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 387, 506(2), read
with Sections 120-B and 114 of the Indian Penal Code are concerned,
he DOES NOT PRESS
this petition.
3. He, however,
submitted that there are no allegations in the complaint of the
commission of offences punishable under Sections 465, 467, 468 and
471, read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
4. To this limited
extent, I have examined the documents on record.
5. As already noted,
the complaint mainly alleges that the accused, present petitioners,
had after entering into certain agreements and documents with the
complainant, in order to dupe the complainant, tried to re-possess
the factory and that from the beginning their intention was to cheat
the complainant. Whatever the validity of these allegations, there
is no allegation with respect to fabrication of documents.
6. Section 465 of the
Indian Penal Code pertains to punishment for forgery . Other
sections under consideration, such as 467, 468 and 471 provides for
the punishment for forgery for the purpose of cheating, in aggravated
form.
7. The term ‘forgery’
has been defined in Section 463 of the Indian Penal Code, in the
following manner:
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 or to any person, or to support any claim or
title, or to contract, or with intent to commit fraud or that fraud
may be committed, commits forgery.
8. The term ‘making
false document’ is defined in Section 464 of the Indian Penal Code
and provides that a person is stated to create a false document,
under certain circumstances. The relevant portion of Section 464 is,
as follows:
464. Making a
false document.- [A person is said to make a false document
or false electronic record-
First- who
dishonestly or fraudulently-
(a) makes, signs, seals
or executes a document or part of a document;
(b) makes or transmits
any electronic record or part of any electronic record;
(c) affixes any
[electronic signature] on any electronic record;
(d) makes any mark
denoting the execution of a document or the authenticity of the
[electronic signature],
with the intention of
causing it to be believed that such document or part of document,
electronic record or [electronic signature] was made, signed, sealed,
executed, transmitted or affixed by or by the authority of a person
by whom or by whose authority he knows that it was not made, signed,
sealed, executed or affixed, or
Secondly- Who,
without lawful authority, dishonestly or fraudulently, by
cancellation or otherwise, alters a document or an electronic record
in any material part thereof, after it has been made, executed or
affixed with [electronic signature]either by himself or by any other
person, whether such person be living or dead the time of such
alteration; or
Thirdly- Who
dishonestly or fraudulently causes any person to sign, seal, execute
or later a document or an electronic record or to affix his
[electronic signature] on any electronic record knowing that such
person by reason of unsoundness of mind or intoxication cannot, or
that by reason of deception practiced upon him, he does not know the
contents of the document or electronic record or the nature of the
alteration.]
9. From the above, it
appears that none of the ingredients of Section 463, 464 of the
Indian Penal Code are found in the impugned complaint. All that is
stated in the complainant is that the accused, to defeat the rights
of the complainant and to misappropriate his properties, had taken
help of forged documents. Except, this bare statement, in one line,
in the entire complaint there are no averments regarding the manner
in which such documents were forged. To my mind, such bald statement
of one line, cannot give rise to a criminal prosecution, for such
serious offences.
10. In the result, as
the complaint stands, as noted earlier, none of the ingredients of
Sections 465, 467, 468 and 471, read with Section 34 of the Indian
Penal Code, are disclosed and the same are ordered to be DELETED
from the COMPLAINT. For the REMAINING
Sections, the investigation may CONTINUE.
11. This
petition is disposed of, in the above terms.
(AKIL
KURESHI, J.)
Umesh/
Top