https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=219900 Proceedings under Section 340 CrPC were held unwarranted where the alleged signature mismatch was not manifest enough to justify criminal action and the respondent had appeared before the forum and ed the signatures on the relevant documents. The record also showed no dishonest gain, unfair advantage, or corresponding loss to the other side. Applying the principle that forgery and use of forged documents require mens rea and an intent to defraud, the court held that mere suspicion or deceit without proof of injury or advantage was insufficient. No case was made out for initiation of Section 340 proceedings, and the appeal failed. en-us Fri, 07 Dec 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 01 Jan 2013 11:57:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=219900 Proceedings under Section 340 CrPC were held unwarranted where the alleged signature mismatch was not manifest enough to justify criminal action and the respondent had appeared before the forum and ed the signatures on the relevant documents. The record also showed no dishonest gain, unfair advantage, or corresponding loss to the other side. Applying the principle that forgery and use of forged documents require mens rea and an intent to defraud, the court held that mere suspicion or deceit without proof of injury or advantage was insufficient. No case was made out for initiation of Section 340 proceedings, and the appeal failed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 07 Dec 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=219900