Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1695 OF 2009 [Arising out of SLP [Crl.] No.6211 of 2007]

Md. Ibrahim & Ors.  … Appellants

Vs.

State of Bihar & Anr. …  Respondents

J U D G M E N T

R.V.RAVEENDRAN, J.

Leave granted. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. Second respondent  herein filed a complaint  against  appellants  1  

to 3 (accused 1 to 3) and two others before the Chief Judicial Magistrate,  

Madhubani,  alleging  that  he  was  the  owner  of  Katha  No.  715  Khasra  

No.1971 and 1973 admeasuring 1 bigha, 5 Katha and 18 Dhurs; that the  

first accused who had no connection with the said land and who had no  

title  thereto,  had  executed  two  registered  sale  deeds  dated  2.6.2003  in  

favour  of  the  second  accused  in  respect  of  a  portion  of  the  said  land  

measuring – 8 Khatas and 13 Dhurs; and that the third, fourth and fifth  

accused being respectively the witness, scribe and stamp vendor in regard  

to the sale deeds had conspired with accused 1 and 2 to forge the said

2

documents; and that when he confronted accused 1 and 2 about the said  

forgery, they abused him and hit him with fists and told him that he can do  

what he wanted, but they will get possession of the land on the basis of the  

said documents.  

3. The learned Magistrate by order dated 19.7.2003 took cognizance  

of the offences under sections 323, 341, 420, 467, 471 and 504 of Indian  

Penal  Code  (for  short,  ‘the  Code’)  and  referred  the  complaint  for  

investigation under section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for  

short,  ‘Cr.P.C.’).  On  the  basis  thereof  a  First  Information  Report  was  

registered on 10.10.2003 with Pandaul Police Station. After investigation,  

a  charge  sheet  came  to  be  filed  on  4.9.2004.  The  accused  applied  for  

discharge. According to the first accused, the complainant and first accused  

were cousins; that Badri Mian (paternal grandfather of the complainant)  

and Mithu Mian (maternal grandfather of first accused) were brothers and  

that they were the owners of plot nos.1973 and 1971; that the said plots  

was inherited by Badri Mian’s son (father of complainant) and by Muthu  

Mian’s children, one of whom was Girja, mother of the first accused; that  

as per a family arrangement, a portion of the said plots came to the share of  

Girja and that portion was in the possession of her husband who got it  

mutated in his name and was paying land revenue; and that after his death,  

the said land came into the possession of her son – the first accused; that  

his  name  was  entered  in  place  of  his  father,  and  he  was  paying  land

3

revenue in regard to the said portion of land; and that he bonafide sold a  

portion  of  the  land  measuring  8  Khatas  and  13  Dhurs  to  the  second  

accused; that the sale deeds were valid, and that the complainant filed a  

false complaint only to harass him. The other accused denied any collusion  

or complicity in any offence. It was also contended that the allegations by  

the complainant even if accepted to be true, would only give rise to a civil  

dispute and did not constitute any offence punishable under the Code or  

any other law.  

4. The prosecution opposed the said application contending that the  

investigation showed that the plot sold was a part of land allotted to Badri,  

grandfather  of  complainant,  and  the  first  accused  did  not  produce  any  

documents  in  support  of  his  title;  and  that  therefore  the  Investigating  

Officer had submitted a charge-sheet against the accused for the aforesaid  

offences relating to preparation of false sale deeds.  

5. The learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Madhubani, by order dated  

14.12.2005 rejected the application for discharge holding that there was  

sufficient  material  for  framing  charges.  The  accused  thereafter  filed  an  

application  under  section  482  Cr.PC  before  the  Patna  High  Court  for  

quashing  the  order  dated  14.12.2005.   In  the  meanwhile  charges  were  

framed  against  the  accused.  The  High  Court  dismissed  the  petition  

observing  that  the  learned  Magistrate  had  found  sufficient  material

4

showing the complicity of the accused in the crime. The said order is under  

challenge in this appeal by special leave.

6. The question that therefore arises for consideration is whether the  

material on record prima facie constitutes any offences against the accused.  

The  contention  of  the  appellant  is  that  if  the  allegations  made  in  the  

complaint and FIR, even if accepted to be true in entirety did not disclose  

the  ingredients  of  any  offence  of  forgery  (sections  467  and  471)  or  

cheating  (section  420)  or  insult  (section  504)  or  wrongful  restraint  

(section 341) or causing hurt (section 323) and there was no other material  

to show any offence and therefore, their application ought to have been  

accepted.  

7. This  Court  has  time  and  again  drawn  attention  to  the  growing  

tendency  of  complainants  attempting  to  give  the  cloak  of  a  criminal  

offence  to  matters  which  are  essentially  and  purely  civil  in  nature,  

obviously either to apply pressure on the accused, or out of enmity towards  

the  accused,  or  to  subject  the  accused  to  harassment.  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, it should be  

noted  that  several  disputes  of  a  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. [See: G. Sagar Suri v.  

5

State of U.P. [2000 (2) SCC 636] and Indian Oil Corporation vs.  NEPC  

India Ltd. [2006 (6) SCC 736].   Let us examine the matter keeping the  

said principles in mind.  

Sections 467 and 471 of the Penal Code

8. Let  us  first  consider  whether  the  complaint  averments  even  

assuming to be true make out the ingredients of the offences punishable  

either under section 467 or section 471 of Penal Code. Section 467 (in so  

far as it is relevant to this case) provides that whoever forges a document  

which  purports  to  be  a  valuable  security,  shall  be  punished  with  

imprisonment for life or with imprisonment of either description for a term  

which may extend to ten years and shall also be liable to fine. Section 471,  

relevant to our purpose, provides that whoever fraudulently or dishonestly  

uses as genuine any document which he knows or has reason to believe to  

be a forged document, shall be punished in the same manner as if he had  

forged such document. Section 470 defines a forged document as a false  

document made by forgery.  

9. The term “forgery” used in these two sections is defined in section  

463.  Whoever makes any false documents with intent to cause damage or  

injury to the public or to any person, or to support any claim or title, or to  

cause any person to part with property, or to enter into express or implied  

contract,  or  with  intent  to  commit  fraud  or  that  the  fraud  may  be

6

committed,  commits  forgery.  Section  464  defining  “making  a  false  

document” is extracted below :

“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 digital signature on any electronic record;

(d) makes any mark denoting the execution of a document or  the authenticity of the digital signature,

with the intention of causing it to be believed that such document or  a part of document, electronic record or digital 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 digital signature either by himself or by any  other person, whether such person be living or dead at the time of  such alternation; or  

Thirdly.—Who  dishonestly  or  fraudulently  causes  any  person  to  sign, seal, execute or alter a document or an electronic record or to  affix his digital signature on any electronic record knowing that such  person by reason of unsoundness of mind or intoxication cannot, or  that by reason of deception practised upon him, he does not know  the contents of the document or electronic record or the nature of the  alteration.

Explanation 1 - A man’s signature of his own name may amount to  forgery.  

Explanation 2 – The making of a false document in the name of a  fictitious person, intending it to be believed that the document was  made  by  a  real  person,  or  in  the  name  of  a  deceased  person,  intending it to be believed that the document was made by the person  in his lifetime, may amount to forgery.

7

[Note:  The  words  ‘digital  signature’  wherever  it  occurs  were  substituted by the words ‘electronic signature’ by Amendment Act  10 of 2009].”  

The  condition  precedent  for  an  offence  under  sections  467  and  471  is  

forgery. The condition precedent for forgery is making a false document  

(or false electronic record or part thereof). This case does not relate to any  

false electronic record. Therefore, the question is whether the first accused,  

in executing and registering the two sale deeds purporting to sell a property  

(even if it is assumed that it did not belong to him), can be said to have  

made and executed false documents, in collusion with the other accused.  

10. An analysis  of  section 464 of  Penal  Code shows that  it  divides  

false documents into three categories:  

10.1) The first is where a person dishonestly or fraudulently makes or  

executes a document with the intention of causing it to be believed that  

such document  was made or  executed by some other  person,  or by the  

authority of some other person, by whom or by whose authority he knows  

it was not made or executed.

10.2) The  second  is  where  a  person  dishonestly  or  fraudulently,  by  

cancellation or otherwise, alters a document in any material part, without  

lawful authority, after it has been made or executed by either himself or  

any other person.

10.3) The third is where a person dishonestly or fraudulently causes any  

person to sign, execute or alter a document knowing that such person could

8

not  by  reason  of  (a)  unsoundness  of  mind;  or  (b)  intoxication;  or  (c)  

deception practised upon him, know the contents of the document or the  

nature of the alteration.  

11. In short, a person is said to have made a ‘false document’, if (i) he  

made or executed a document claiming to be someone else or authorised  

by someone else; or (ii) he altered or  tampered a document; or (iii) he  

obtained  a  document  by  practicing  deception,  or  from a  person  not  in  

control of his senses.

12. The sale deeds executed by first appellant, clearly and obviously  

do not fall under the second and third categories of ‘false documents’. It  

therefore remains to be seen whether the claim of the complainant that the  

execution of sale deeds by the first accused, who was in no way connected  

with the land, amounted to committing forgery of the documents with the  

intention of taking possession of complainant’s land (and that accused 2  

to 5 as the purchaser, witness, scribe and stamp vendor colluded with first  

accused in execution and registration of the said sale deeds) would bring  

the  case  under  the  first  category.  There  is  a  fundamental  difference  

between  a  person  executing  a  sale  deed  claiming  that  the  property  

conveyed  is  his  property,  and  a  person  executing  a  sale  deed  by  

impersonating  the  owner  or  falsely  claiming  to  be  authorised  or  

empowered by the owner, to execute the deed on owner’s behalf. When a

9

person executes a document conveying a property describing it as his, there  

are two possibilities. The first is that he bonafide believes that the property  

actually  belongs  to  him.  The  second  is  that  he  may  be  dishonestly  or  

fraudulently claiming it to be his even though he knows that it is not his  

property.  But 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 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 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 defined under section 464 of the Code. If  

what is executed is not a false document, there is no forgery. If there is no  

forgery, then neither section 467 nor section 471 of the Code are attracted.

Section 420 IPC

13. Let  us  now  examine  whether  the  ingredients  of  an  offence  of  

cheating  are  made  out.  The  essential  ingredients  of  the  offence  of  

“cheating” are as follows: (i)  deception of a person either by making a  

false or misleading representation or by dishonest concealment or by any

10

other  act  or  omission;  (ii)  fraudulent  or  dishonest  inducement  of  that  

person to either deliver any property or to consent to the retention thereof  

by any person or to intentionally induce that person so deceived to do or  

omit  to do anything which he would not  do or  omit if  he were not  so  

deceived;  and  (iii)  such  act  or  omission  causing  or  is  likely  to  cause  

damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property. To  

constitute an offence under section 420, there should not only be cheating,  

but as a consequence of such cheating, the accused should have dishonestly  

induced the person deceived (i) to deliver any property to any person, or  

(ii)  to  make,  alter  or  destroy  wholly  or  in  part  a  valuable  security  (or  

anything signed or sealed and which is capable of being converted into a  

valuable security).  

14. When  a  sale  deed  is  executed  conveying  a  property  claiming  

ownership thereto,  it  may be possible for the purchaser under such sale  

deed,  to  allege  that  the  vendor  has  cheated  him  by  making  a  false  

representation of ownership and fraudulently induced him to part with the  

sale consideration. But in this case the complaint is not by the purchaser.  

On the other hand, the purchaser is made a co-accused. It is not the case of  

the  complainant  that  any of  the  accused  tried to  deceive  him  either by  

making  a false  or  misleading  representation  or  by  any  other  action  or  

omission,  nor  is  it  his  case  that  they  offered  him  any  fraudulent  or

11

dishonest inducement to deliver any property or to consent to the retention  

thereof by any person or to intentionally induce him to do or omit to do  

anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived. Nor  

did  the  complainant  allege  that  the  first  appellant  pretended  to  be  the  

complainant while executing the sale deeds. Therefore, it cannot be said  

that the first accused by the act of executing sale deeds in favour of the  

second accused or the second accused by reason of being the purchaser, or  

the third, fourth and fifth accused, by reason of being the witness, scribe  

and stamp vendor in regard to the sale deeds, deceived the complainant in  

any manner. As the ingredients of cheating as stated in section 415 are not  

found,  it  cannot  be  said  that  there  was  an  offence  punishable  under  

sections 417, 418, 419 or 420 of the Code.  

A clarification  

15. When we say that execution of a sale deed by a person, purporting  

to convey a property which is not his, as his property, is not making a false  

document  and  therefore  not  forgery,  we  should  not  be  understood  as  

holding that such an act can never be a criminal offence. If a person sells a  

property knowing that it does not belong to him, and thereby defrauds the  

person  who  purchased  the  property,  the  person  defrauded,  that  is  the  

purchaser, may complain that the vendor committed the fraudulent act of  

cheating. But a third party who is not the purchaser under the deed may not  

be able to make such complaint.  The term ‘fraud’ is not defined in the

12

Code.  The  dictionary  definition  of  ‘fraud’  is  “deliberate  deception,  

treachery  or  cheating  intended  to  gain  advantage”.  Section  17  of  the  

Contract Act, 1872 defines ‘fraud’ with reference to a party to a contract.  

In  Dr. Vimla vs. Delhi Administration – AIR 1963 SC 1572, this Court  

explained the meaning of the expression ‘defraud’ thus  

“The  expression  "defraud"  involves  two elements,  namely,  deceit  and injury to the person deceived.  Injury is  something other than  economic loss that is, deprivation of property, whether movable or  immovable,  or  of  money,  and it  will  include  any harm whatever  caused to any person in body, mind, reputation or such others. In  short,  it  is  a  non-economic  or  non-pecuniary  loss.  A  benefit  or  advantage to the deceiver will almost always cause loss or detriment  to the deceived. Even in those rare cases where there is a benefit or  advantage to the deceiver, but no corresponding loss to the deceived,  the second condition is satisfied.”

The above definition was in essence reiterated in  State of UP vs. Ranjit   

Singh – 1999 (2) SCC 617.  

16. The Penal Code however defines ‘fraudulently’, an adjective form  

of the word ‘fraud’, in section 25, as follows : “A person is said to do a  

thing  fraudulently  if  he  does  that  thing  with  intent  to  defraud  but  not  

otherwise”.  The  term  “fraudulently”  is  mostly  used  with  the  term  

“dishonestly” which is defined in section 24 as follows : “Whoever does  

anything  with  the  intention  of  causing wrongful  gain  to  one  person  or  

wrongful loss to another person is said to do that thing “dishonestly”. To  

‘defraud’ or do something fraudulently is not by itself  made an offence

13

under  the  Penal  Code,  but  various  acts  when  done  fraudulently  (or  

fraudulently and dishonestly) are made offences. These include:  

(i) Fraudulent removal or concealment of property (sec.206, 421, 424)

(ii) Fraudulent claim to property to prevent seizure (sec. 207).  

(iii) Fraudulent suffering or obtaining a decree (sec. 208 and 210)

(iv) Fraudulent  possession/delivery  of  counterfeit  coin  (sec.239,  240,  242  and 243).

(v) Fraudulent alteration/diminishing weight of coin (sec. 246 to 253)

(vi) Fraudulent acts relating to stamps (sec. 261-261)

(vii) Fraudulent use of false instruments/weight/measure (sec.264 to 266)

(viii) Cheating (sec. 415 to 420)

(ix) Fraudulent prevention of debt being available to creditors (sec. 422).  

(x) Fraudulent execution of deed of transfer containing false statement of  consideration (sec. 423).  

(xi) Forgery making or executing a false document (sec. 463 to 471 and 474)  

(xii) Fraudulent cancellation/destruction of valuable security etc.(sec. 477)

(xiii) Fraudulently going through marriage ceremony (sec.496).  

It follows therefore that by merely alleging or showing that a person acted  

fraudulently,  it  cannot  be  assumed  that  he  committed  an  offence  

punishable under the Code or any other law, unless that fraudulent act is  

specified to be an offence under the Code or other law.  

Section 504 of Penal Code

14

17. The  allegations  in  the  complaint  do  not  also  made  out  the  

ingredients of an offence under section 504 of the Penal Code. Section 504  

refers  to  intentional  insult  with  intent  to  provoke breach of  peace.  The  

allegation in the complainant is that when he enquired with accused 1 and  

2 about the sale deeds, they asserted that they will obtain possession of  

land under the sale deeds and he can do whatever he wants. The statement  

attributed to appellants 1 and 2, it cannot be said to amount to an “insult  

with  intent  to  provoke  breach  of  peace”.  The  statement  attributed  to  

accused,  even  if  it  was  true,  was  merely  a  statement  referring  to  the  

consequence of execution of the sale deeds by first appellant in favour of  

the second appellant.  

Conclusion  

18. The averments in the complaint if assumed to be true, do not make  

out any offence under sections 420, 467, 471 and 504 of the Code, but may  

technically show the ingredients  of offences of wrongful restraint  under  

section 341 and causing hurt under section 323 of IPC.  

19. For the reasons stated above, the appeal  is allowed in part.  The  

order of the High Court is set aside. The order dated 14.12.2005 of the  

learned  Sub-Divisional  Magistrate  is  quashed  insofar  as  offences  under  

sections 420,  467,  471 and 504 IPC. Consequently,  the charges framed

15

under those sections are also quashed. The order dated 14.12.2005 and the  

charges in so far as the offence under sections 323 and 341 IPC are left  

undisturbed. The appeal is allowed in part accordingly.

…………………………..J [R. V. Raveendran]

…………………………..J [R. M. Lodha]

New Delhi;  September 4, 2009