TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether execution of a sale deed by a person asserting title to property, though the property may not belong to him, amounts to making a false document so as to constitute forgery and attract offences under sections 467 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, and whether the same allegations disclose cheating under section 420 and intentional insult under section 504; (ii) whether the averments disclose offences under sections 323 and 341 of the Indian Penal Code.
Issue (i): Whether execution of a sale deed by a person asserting title to property, though the property may not belong to him, amounts to making a false document so as to constitute forgery and attract offences under sections 467 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, and whether the same allegations disclose cheating under section 420 and intentional insult under section 504.
Analysis: A false document under section 464 requires more than a dishonest assertion of ownership. It must be shown that the document was made or executed pretending to be another person or pretending to act under the authority of another, or that it was altered, or procured from a person incapable of understanding it because of unsoundness of mind, intoxication, or deception. A person who executes a sale deed describing property as his own, even if he is not the owner, does not thereby claim to be someone else or to act on another's authority. Such execution therefore does not satisfy the statutory definition of a false document, and without a false document there can be no forgery for the purposes of sections 467 and 471. The ingredients of cheating were also absent because the complainant was not shown to have been deceived into parting with property or into doing or omitting any act by fraudulent inducement. The allegation under section 504 also failed because the words attributed to the accused did not amount to intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace.
Conclusion: The allegations did not make out offences under sections 420, 467, 471 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code.
Issue (ii): Whether the averments disclose offences under sections 323 and 341 of the Indian Penal Code.
Analysis: On the complaint averments, the Court found that the materials may technically disclose the ingredients of wrongful restraint and causing hurt, and therefore those allegations were not fit for quashing at the same stage.
Conclusion: The allegations under sections 323 and 341 were left undisturbed.
Final Conclusion: The challenge succeeded only in part. The criminal proceedings were quashed for the offences found not to be made out, while the remaining allegations were allowed to stand.
Ratio Decidendi: Execution of a sale deed by a person claiming property as his own, though he is not the owner, does not amount to making a false document unless he impersonates another or falsely claims authority from another person.
TaxTMI 
