Court quashes criminal proceeding for forgery due to insufficient complaint details.

The court quashed the criminal proceeding initiated based on a complaint alleging forgery, as the complaint did not disclose offenses under the relevant sections of the Indian Penal Code. It was found that the documents alleged to be forged were not considered false documents under Section 464 of the IPC, as they were signed by the individual mentioned. The court emphasized the necessity of including primary facts in a complaint to substantiate allegations. The Magistrate's cognizance was deemed unjustified due to the lack of detailed facts, leading to the quashing of the proceeding.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Quashing of the criminal proceeding initiated based on the complaint.
2. Validity of the documents alleged to be forged.
3. Sufficiency of the complaint to constitute an offence under Sections 465/34 and 471/120B of the Indian Penal Code.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Quashing of the Criminal Proceeding:
The petitioners sought quashing of the criminal proceeding initiated by the complainant, alleging that the complaint did not disclose any offence under Sections 465/34 and 471/120B of the Indian Penal Code. The court examined whether the allegations in the complaint constituted a prima facie case warranting the continuation of the proceedings.

2. Validity of the Documents Alleged to be Forged:
The complainant alleged that the petitioners conspired to create forged documents dated 03.02.1989 and 30.03.1989 to support a false charge against her, leading to her wrongful termination. The court analyzed whether these documents could be considered "false documents" under Section 464 of the Indian Penal Code. It was noted that merely incorporating false statements in a document does not make it a false document unless it tells a lie about itself. Since the documents were admittedly written and signed by Sri S. N. Banerjee, they could not be considered false even if the content was untrue.

3. Sufficiency of the Complaint to Constitute an Offence:
The court scrutinized the complaint to determine if it contained sufficient facts to constitute the alleged offences. It was emphasized that a complaint must contain the primary facts on which the allegations are based, not just a mere assertion of offences. The court found that the complaint lacked detailed facts and materials to substantiate the allegation that the documents were not created on the dates mentioned. Consequently, the Magistrate's cognizance of the complaint was deemed unjustified as it was based on an inference without supporting facts.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the learned Magistrate was not justified in taking cognizance of the complaint as it did not contain the necessary facts to constitute the alleged offences. The proceeding was quashed, and the benefit of this order extended to the other accused. The court emphasized the importance of detailing the basic facts in a complaint to enable a Magistrate to take cognizance legally.

Separate Judgment:
S.P. Rajkhowa, J. concurred with the judgment delivered.

---