LexMD. IBRAHIM & ORS. versus STATE OF BIHAR & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2009) 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 1254 A MD. IBRAHIM & ORS. ,;, v. STATE OF BIHAR & ANR. ., (Criminal Appeal No.1695 .of 2009) B SEPTEMBER 4, 2009 [R.V. RAVEENDRAN AND R. M. LODHA, JJ.] ~ Penal Code, 1860- ss. 420, 467, 471, 504, 323 and 341 - Complaint under - Complainant alleging that the land c owned by him was sold by one accused to the other accused - Allegation also against the scribe, witness and stamp vendor to the sale deeds - Charges framed - Application for discharge dismissed - Application uls 482 Cr. P. C. dismissed - On appeal, held: Averments in complaint do not make out D offence ulss. 420, 467, 471 and 504 - Hence, charges ""\' thereunder quashed - However, complaint technically shows ingredients of offences u/ss. 341 and 323 ..o. Therefore, charges thereunder, not disturbed - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.482. E Second respondent filed a complaint against appel,ants 1 to 3 (accused 1 to 3) and two others, before the Cbief Judicial Magistrate, alleging that first accused had executed two registered sale deeds in favour of the I F secon(t accused in respect of a portion of the land of which ~e was the owner. The third, fourth and fifth accuse were the witness, scribe and stamp vendor to the sale' deeds and had conspired with accused 1 and 2 to forge the said documents. When he confronted accused 1 and 2 about the said forgery, they abused and G hit him. The Magistrate took cognizance of the offences ulss. 323, 341, 420, 467, 471 and 504 IPC and referred the complaint for investigation uls. 156(3) Cr.P.C .. On the H 1254 MD. IBRAHIM & ORS. v. STATE OF 'BIHAR & ANR. 1255 basis thereof, an FIR was registered. A charge-sheet was A • filed. The accused applied for discharge. First accused claimed to be owner of the I; and stated that he bonafide sold the land. He also stated that the complaint, even if accepted to be true, would only give rise to a civil dispute and did not constitute any offence. The Magistrate B rejected the application for discharge, holding that there was sufficient material for framing charges. The accused .... thereafter filed an application uls. 482 Cr.PC. High Court dismissed the petition. Hence, the prese_nt appeal. Partly allowing the appeal, the Court c HELD: 1. Criminal courts should ensure that proceedings before it are not used for settling scores or ~, to pressurise parties to settle civil disputes. But at the ·;.. \same time, it should be noted that several disputes of a 0 civil nature may also contain the ingredients of criminal offences and if so, will have to be tried as criminal offences, even if they also amount to civil disputes. (Para 7] (1261-D-E] G. Sagar Suri v. State of-U.P. 2000 (2) SCC 636; Indian E Oil Corporation v. NEPC India Ltd. 2006 (6) SCC 736- relied on 2.1. The condition precedent for an offence ulss. 467 and 471 IPC is forgery. The condition precedent for F forgery is making a false document (or false electronic record or part thereof). A person is said to have made a 'false document' as envisaged uls. 464 IPC, if (i} he made or executed a document claiming to be someone else or authorized by someone else; or (ii) he altered or tampered G a document; or (iii) he obtained a document by practicing deception, or from a person not in control of his senses. [Paras 9 and 11] [1263-G; 1264-E-F] 2.2. The sale deeds executed by first appellant, clearly H 1256 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2009] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R. A and obviously do not fall under the second and third categories of 'false docu,tnents'. 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 B 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. -.' When a document is executed by a person claiming a c property which is not his, he is not claiming that he is someone else nor is he claiming that he is authorised by someone else. Therefore, execution of such document (purporting to convey some property of which he is not the owner) is not execution of a false document as D defined u/s. 464 IPC. If what is executed is not a false ,.,... document, there is no forgery. If there is no forgery, then i' neither Section 467
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.