Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.  1941    OF 2009

(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 4867 of  2007)

Parminder Kaur ...Appellant

Versus

State of U.P. & Anr. … Respondents

J U D G M E N T

V.S. SIRPURKAR, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal is filed challenging the order of the High  

Court, whereby, the High Court has dismissed an application  

filed  by  the  appellant  herein  under  Section  482  of  the  

Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter called “Cr.P.C.” for  

short) for quashing the proceedings arising out of charge  

1

sheet  of  case  No.  3045  of  2004  under  Sections  

420/467/468/471  of  the  Indian  Penal  Code  (hereinafter  

called  “IPC”  for  short),  pending  in  the  Court  of  Chief  

Judicial Magistrate, Rampur.

3. This  prosecution  was  initiated  on  the  basis  of  the  

First Information Report (FIR) dated 27.2.2004 lodged by  

one Hargursharan Singh (complainant) against the appellant  

herein,  alleging  the  offences  under  aforementioned  

Sections.  As per the said complainant, by respondent no.2  

one  Amrinder  Kaur  and  her  husband  Col.  Hargobind  Singh  

owned agricultural property, bearing Khata Nos. 40 and 2.  

They were unable to look after the property and, therefore,  

appointed Hargursharan Singh, respondent No. 2 herein (the  

real  brother  of  Col.  Hargobind  Singh),  as  their  general  

attorney.  Respondent No. 2 herein, by virtue of general  

power  of  attorney,  sold  the  aforementioned  land  and  

delivered  possession  to  the  purchasers.   He  described  

appellant-Parminder Kaur as a stranger.  Two Civil Suits  

came to be filed by the appellant, Parminder Kaur, claiming  

to be holding Power of Attorney for Amrinder Kaur, against  

the purchasers.  They were Civil Suit Nos. 266 of 2002 and  

267 of 2002.  In those Civil Suits, she prayed for the  

cancellation  of  the  Sale  Deeds.   According  to  the  

2

prosecution,  while  instituting  these  suits  on  27.5.2002,  

the appellant had filed a false affidavit that she had come  

to know regarding the Sale Deed only on 16.5.2002 and had  

obtained a certified copy of Revenue Record on 27.5.2002.  

According to the complainant, in fact, the appellant had  

actually  moved  for  the  certified  copy  of  Khatauni  on  

6.5.2002 and had already received the copy on 7.5.2002.  On  

that allegation, it was contended in the FIR that she had  

committed the offences as alleged.  The High Court took the  

view that the FIR, as well as, the material collected by  

the prosecution were good enough at least to proceed and it  

could not be said that no offence was disclosed from the  

same.  It is this judgment of the High Court, which is  

challenged before us.

4. We have seen the FIR closely, on the basis of which  

the  offences  were  registered.   This  report  has  been  

authored by respondent No. 2 Hargursharan Singh S/o Shri  

Gurbaksh Singh.  It has been stated in this report that he  

held a power of attorney on behalf of one Col. Hargobind  

Singh and “Amrinder Kaur” and on that basis, he sold the  

land of Amrinder Kaur to one Col. Sarabjeet Singh S/o Avtar  

Singh and Namrata Chandi D/o Hargursharan Singh (i.e. the  

daughter of the complainant).  It was pointed out that the  

3

registration was effected in the same year.  Similarly, he  

had  sold  one  other  land  of  Col.  Hargobind  Singh  to  one  

Prabhjyot Singh S/o Teja Singh and Balbir Singh S/o Gurjit  

Singh.  He also claimed that some other land out of the  

total land was also sold to one Manjeet Singh S/o Jagir  

Singh and Balbir Singh S/o Gurjit Singh.  It was further  

asserted that the lands were in cultivation of the vendees.  

One  “unrelated  lady”  Parminder  Kaur  W/o  Col.  Hargobind  

Singh, R/o Village Behait, Distt. Rampur, who had no right  

in the said land, had filed two Civil Suits, being Civil  

Suit Nos. 266 of 2002 and 267 of 2002 against Hargursharan  

Singh (the complainant) and also filed Civil Suit No. 268  

of  2002  against  Prabhjyot  Singh  in  the  Court  of  Civil  

Judge, Rampur.  It was claimed that said suits were pending  

disposal.  It was further claimed that the suits were filed  

by Parminder Kaur (appellant herein) and she supported the  

same with a false affidavit, in which she stated that she  

learnt about the sale of agricultural land on 16.5.2002 and  

immediately,  she  applied  for  the  certified  copy  of  the  

Revenue  records,  which  were  made  available  to  her  on  

27.5.2002  and  without  any  delay,  she  filed  the  present  

suit.   It  was  pointed  out  further  that  Parminder  Kaur  

(appellant herein) had already applied for certified copy  

of  Revenue  Records  on  6.5.2002  and  the  same  was  made  

4

available to her on 7.5.2002.  However, to overcome the  

limitation, she altered the date from 6.5.2002 to 16.5.2002  

and 7.5.2002 to 17.5.2002 and 27.5.2002.  It was further  

claimed in the said report that Parminder Kaur had filed  

Civil Suit No. 267 of 2002 in the capacity of power of  

attorney  on  behalf  of  “Amrinder  Hargobind  Singh”  and  in  

fact, she had no concern with the land in question.  It was  

further pointed out that the real owners of the land had  

not objected to the sale of land and the sale was being  

objected to by Parminder Kaur, who was an “unrelated woman”  

and she had no right to interfere.  It was then claimed  

that  Parminder  Kaur,  in  order  to  cause  loss  to  the  

complainant, interpolated the dates of Revenue Records and,  

therefore,  the  documents  were  forged  and  the  same  were  

produced in the Court in order to defraud the Court and a  

false affidavit had been sworn in the Court and she was  

liable to be punished for the same.  With the FIR, the  

affidavit dated 27.5.2002 sworn by Parminder Kaur in Suit  

Nos. 266 of 2002 and 268 of 2002 were filed alongwith other  

documents like Duplicate Khata No. 40, Duplicate Khatoni  

No. 40, Duplicate Khatoni Khata No. 2, Search Certificate  

dated 11.6.2002 of Office Asstt. Manager, Bilaspur, reply  

dated  10.6.2002  and  26.9.2002  and  Form  No.  148  dated  

6.5.2005  given  to  one  Surender  Kumar  by  Tehsildar  for  

5

certified copy.  It is on this basis that the offence was  

registered, investigated into and the chargesheet was filed  

against the present appellant Parminder Kaur.

5. The present appellant Parminder Kaur is 74 years old  

lady.  It is claimed in the Special Leave Petition that the  

present appellant, in fact is the wife of Col. Hargobind  

Singh and is having indifferent health.  It is claimed that  

Parmindar  Kaur  is  none  else,  but  the  complainant’s  

brother’s  wife  and  it  was  she  who  had  filed  the  three  

aforementioned suits, being Civil Suit Nos. 266 of 2002,  

267 of 2002 and 268 of 2002 on 27.5.2002.  It is pointed  

out in the Special Leave Petition that she had, in fact,  

applied for the certified copy of the Revenue Records and  

it was she who prosecuted the suits in her capacity as the  

wife of Col. Hargobind Singh.  She also clarified that she  

had applied for the Revenue Records on 16.5.2002 and the  

same were made available to her on 27.5.2002 and she had  

given  certified  copies  to  her  counsel  Shri  O.P.  Gupta.  

Further  she  has  pointed  out  that  earlier  the  power  of  

attorney  was  executed  by  husband  of  appellant,  Col.  

Hargobind Singh in favour of the complainant/respondent No.  

2 on 3.7.1970 with regard to the land in question, however,  

it was revoked on 29.7.1975.  She then pointed out that her  

6

daughter Amrinder Kaur executed a power of attorney with  

regard to her land on 27.3.1991 and revoked the same in  

April, 1991.  The further claim is that after the certified  

copies of Revenue Records were given to her counsel Shri  

O.P. Gupta, she was asked at that time to put signatures on  

40 blank papers.  Her contention is that she had nothing to  

gain by altering the date on the certified copies by adding  

“1”, i.e., making “16” instead of “6” and “17” instead of  

“7”.  She further alleged that at the instance of Shri O.P.  

Gupta,  she  was  dubbed  as  a  hardened  criminal  and  two  

criminal  cases  were  registered  against  her.   She  also  

points out that she was taken to Rampur from Chandigarh and  

she  was  dumped  in  a  dark  cell  and  she  remained  in  the  

custody for about a week and was granted bail only by the  

District Judge, Rampur.  Her contention is that all these  

were  the  schemes  conceived  by  the  respondent  No.  2  to  

anyhow put her behind the bars.  She points out that in one  

of  the  matters,  respondent  No.  2  Hargursharan  Singh  has  

claimed to be the owner on the basis of adverse possession  

of a land owned by her.  She further points out that a mere  

look at the documents in Civil Suit could show that she was  

never in Rampur on 27.5.2002 when the plaint was supposed  

to have been filed.   

7

6. We have seen the papers filed alongwith the Special  

Leave  Petition,  viz.,  Annexure  P-3  on  Page  42  of  the  

Special Leave Petition’s Paper Book, wherein the date for  

submission of application has been shown to be 6.5.2002 and  

the date of delivery has been shown to be 7.5.2002.  On the  

first page of the document, it is shown that the land of  

Col. Hargobind Singh S/o Gurbaksh Singh was transferred in  

the name of Manjeet Singh S/o Jagir Singh and Balbir Singh  

S/o  Gurjit  Singh  on  the  basis  of  Sale  Deed  for  

Rs.2,78,000/-.  On the second page of the Annexure, it is  

shown  that  the  land  of  Col.  Hargobind  Singh  stood  

transferred in the name of Prabhjyot Singh vide Sale Deed  

for Rs.4,60,000.   

7. We have also seen the plaint in Civil Suit No. 266 of  

2002.  The plaintiff is described as “Col. Hargobind Singh,  

Major S/o Shri Gurbaksh Singh R/o Village Behait, Tehsil  

Bilaspur,  Distt.  Rampur  (U.P.)  through  attorney  Smt.  

Parminder Kaur W/o Col. Hargobind Singh R/o Village Behait  

Tehsil Bilaspur, Distt. Rampur (U.P.)”.  In Para 1 also,  

Parminder Kaur has described herself as the wife of Col.  

Hargobind Singh and it is asserted that the suit was being  

filed on behalf of Col. Hargobind Singh in the capacity of  

his  attorney.   Paras  2  and  3  of  the  plaint  gives  the  

8

description  of  the  various  lands  held  by  Col.  Hargobind  

Singh.   In  Para  4,  it  is  pointed  out  that  Hargursharan  

Singh  was  appointed  as  attorney  vide  power  of  attorney  

dated  3.4.1970.   Para  5  of  the  plaint  suggests  the  

revocation  of  the  power  of  attorney  and  the  intimation  

thereof  to  the  concerned  authorities  like  Sub-Divisional  

Magistrate, Bilaspur and the respondent No. 2 etc.  In Para  

6,  it  is  pointed  out  that  Sardar  Hargursharan  Singh  

executed a forged and fabricated Sale Deed with regard to  

the land comprising in Gatha No. 1/15 M. area 5.36 acres in  

favour of defendant Nos. 2 and 3, i.e., Manjeet Singh and  

Balbir Singh respectively, without any right or authority  

posing  himself  as  a  general  attorney  of  Col.  Hargobind  

Singh and got the same registered, whereas on that day, he  

had no such right or authority for executing a Sale Deed.  

On that day, i.e. on 10.1.1996, he was not a general power  

of attorney holder at all.  It was pointed out that the  

mutation was also got done by the respondent No. 2 herein.  

In the plaint, it is suggested in Para 8 that plaintiff  

(Parminder Kaur) came to know about the cheating through  

the Record Keeper for the first time on 16.5.2002, when she  

asked for the copy of Khatoni.  Para further goes on to say  

that:

9

“plaintiff got inspected the Revenue Records in the  Office  of  Registrar,  Kannungo,  Bilaspur  and  on  the  same  day,  filled  up  the  Form  for  getting  certified  copies  of  the  copy  of  the  Khatoni  and  today  dated  27.5.2002 after getting the copy of the Khatoni, is  filing the present suit without any delay.”

Again in Para 10, it is suggested that for the first time  

the cause of action arose on 16.5.2002 due to the execution  

of forged and void Sale Deed by Manjeet Singh (defendant  

No. 1 therein) without any right or authority.  The plaint  

is shown to be filed on 27.5.2002.  There is a verification  

also on that date.  There is then an affidavit on record,  

again signed by Parminder Kaur, aged about 65 years, W/o  

Col. Hargobind Singh, R/o Village Behait, Tehsil Bilaspur,  

Distt. Rampur, U.P., where all the contentions raised in  

the  plaint  are  reiterated.   We  have  seen  the  original  

affidavits also, which are in the name of Parminder Kaur.  

Similar  such  affidavits  are  to  be  seen  alongwith  the  

Special Leave Petition.

8. In so far as C.S.No.267 of 2002 is concerned, the same  

was  filed  by  the  appellant  on  behalf  of  her  daughter  

Amrinder Kaur for whom she was holding power of attorney  

dated 4.2.2002.  Therein she sought setting side of the  

sale deed dated 3.7.1991 effected by the respondent no.2  

herein  on  the  ground  that  the  respondent  no.2  had  no  

authority to effect the sale of the land of Amrinder Kaur.  

1

The power of attorney dated 27.3.1991 effected by Amrinder  

Kaur was already cancelled before the date of sale.  In  

that suit also she claimed that she had came to know of the  

fraudulent sale on 16.5.2002 when she inspected the revenue  

record which suggested that the concerned land was no more  

recorded  in  the  name  of  Amrinder  Kaur.   Further  the  

appellant filed a suit bearing C.S. No.268 of 2002 against  

Prabhjyot Singh on the same lines.

9. The respondent no.2 also initiated one more criminal  

matter in which he asserted before the court regarding the  

same land that he was in adverse possession of the land in  

respect  of  which  the  civil  suits  were  filed  by  the  

appellant herein.  Besides these civil suits, she has also  

filed proceedings before the Revenue authorities for the  

change of revenue entries in her favour.  It may be noticed  

that those revenue entries in respect of the lands stood in  

favour of the vendees whose vendor was none else but the  

respondent no.2.  Ultimately the appellant did not succeed  

in those proceedings and hence she seems to have filed the  

aforementioned civil suits.

10. On the basis of the aforementioned so-called forgeries  

a First Information Report bearing No.32 of 2004 vide Crime  

No.75 of 2004 was registered against the appellant.  It  

1

seems that in another Crime No.390 of 2003 pending in the  

Court  of  CJM,  Rampur,  she  had  filed  an  exemption  

application praying for exemption from personal appearance  

which was granted while exemption application filed before  

the Bilaspur Court was declined.  Her Transfer Petitions  

were also dismissed and those orders were maintained right  

upto this Court.

11. The  appellant  then  approached  the  High  Court  of  

Allahabad by way of a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.  

for  quashing  the  proceedings  arising  out  of  the  charge-

sheet  of  Case  No.3045  of  2004  for  the  offence  under  

Sections 420/467/468/471 IPC.  We have already given the  

details of the First Information Report dated 27.2.2004 on  

the  basis  of  which  the  aforementioned  prosecution  had  

commenced.  The Allahabad High Court, however, declined to  

interfere, relying on the judgment of this Court in K. Rama  

Krishna & Ors. vs. State of Bihar & Anr [AIR 2000 SC 3330].  

The  High  Court  expressed  that  it  would  be  ordinarily  

reluctant  to  interfere  in  the  proceedings  at  the  

interlocutory stage.  The High Court also went on to record  

that in the instant case there was no legal bar against the  

continuance of criminal proceedings in respect of alleged  

offence and it was not the case where the allegations in  

1

the First Information Report even if are taken on the face  

value did not constitute the offence alleged nor could it  

be  said  that  even  without  appreciating  the  evidence  and  

merely  by  looking  at  the  complaint  or  the  FIR  or  the  

accompanying  documents,  the  offence  alleged  was  not  

disclosed.  It is this verdict of the High Court which is  

challenged before us.   

12. We must note, at this juncture, that the respondent  

no.2 has filed a huge counter affidavit to the petition  

filed by the appellant wherein every possible document has  

been  filed  including  all  the  documents  in  the  earlier  

Transfer  Petitions,  the  Revenue  proceedings  as  also  the  

pending criminal proceedings.  Based on the assertion of  

the counter, his basic plea is that he was holding a valid  

power of attorney for the appellant and it was on the basis  

of that power that he sold the lands and had also given all  

the considerations to his brother Col. Hargobind Singh and  

the  appellant.   He  also  admits  that  he  sold  the  land  

belonging  to  their  daughter  Amarinder  Kaur.   However,  

before  the  criminal  court  he  asserted  that  he  was  in  

possession  of  the  land  right  from  1954  or  somewhere  

thereafter and hence had become owner by way of adverse  

possession.   It  is  quite  interesting  to  note  his  

1

aforementioned stand which he has given on oath before the  

criminal court which has been brought to our notice and  

which is not denied by the respondent no.2.  However, this  

is neither the occasion nor the proper stage to consider  

the merits or de-merits of the said plea.  All that we are  

concerned with is, whether the appellant could be said to  

have  committed  the  offence  of  forgery,  cheating,  etc.,  

which are being alleged against her on the basis of which  

she is facing the prosecution.  We have, therefore, heard  

the parties extensively in this regard.

13. We find that the huge counter affidavit of about 346  

pages is of no use as it merely relates to the pending  

litigation between the parties.  However, one thing is very  

certain therefrom that the appellant on the one hand and  

the respondent no.2 on the other hand are bitterly fighting  

civil  litigations  which  are  pending  before  the  Rampur  

Courts.   These  litigations  started  from  the  year  2002  

firstly in revenue Courts and then with the filing of three  

Civil Suits about which we have already mentioned above.  

The concerned FIR appears to have been filed on 27.2.2004,  

i.e., when the civil litigations, i.e., CS No.266 of 2002,  

CS 267 of 2002 and CS 268 of 2002 were pending.  The very  

fact that the criminal proceedings were initiated by the  

1

respondent no.2 who was none else but the real brother-in-

law (husband’s real younger brother) against his sister-in-

law  whom  he  described  as  an  “unrelated  person”,  the  

appellant  herein,  who  is  about  75  years  of  age  speaks  

volumes  in  so  far  as  propriety  of  such  criminal  

prosecutions is concerned.  It is absolutely clear from the  

manner in which the litigation is being fought that it is  

nothing  but  to  wreak  vengeance  that  the  criminal  

prosecution  has  been  started.   We  particularly  find  the  

total absence of bona fides on the part of the respondent  

no.2 to file the First Information Report which we have  

quoted above.  We also are at a loss to understand as to  

what offence has been committed by the appellant herein and  

how could the court take cognizance of the FIR filed by the  

Bilaspur Police Station.  This is a classic example where  

the concerned Investigating Officer of the Bilaspur Police  

Station has totally subverted the investigation system and  

started  the  prosecution  of  an  old  lady.   We  are  also  

surprised that the said old lady was arrested and had to  

stay behind the bars for more than a week which fact is not  

disputed by even the counsel for the State of U.P.    We  

also  fail  to  understand  as  to  how  the  trial  court  took  

cognizance of a non-existent offence mechanically.

1

14. The  only  allegation  which  appears  from  the  First  

Information Report is that the appellant altered the date  

from  “6.5.2002”  to  “16.5.2002”  and  “7.5.2002”  to  

“17.5.2002” and “27.5.2002”.  It seems from the certified  

copy that though she had applied for the certified copies  

of the revenue records on 6.5.2002 and the same were made  

available to her on 7.5.2002, she altered those dates in  

the copies filed by her in the court to “16.5.2002” and  

“17.5.2002” as also “27.5.2002”.  This is all the forgery  

which has been complained of by the respondent no.2 in the  

aforementioned FIR.  It is only on this basis that it is  

suggested that the said civil suits were filed on 27.5.2002  

and a false affidavit was sworn by the appellant.  It is  

pointed out that in that affidavit also she had given the  

wrong dates.  The only basis for this allegation is in the  

following words:

“This interpolation of dates is apparent because  from 15.5.2002 to 30.5.02 no one inspected the  records of Khata No.40 of Village Beehat.  That  in  the  letter  dated  26.9.02  it  has  been  made  clear  that  the  certified  copy  with  regard  to  Khata  No.40  situated  in  village  Beehat  Khatoni  1.4.02 to 1.4.07 was got ready on 7.5.02 itself.”

It is then contended that:

“Smt.Parminder Kaur in order to cause loss to the  applicant  interpolated  the  dates  of  revenue  records and thus the documents are forged and the  

1

same  were  produced  in  the  court  in  order  to  defraud the court and false affidavit has been  filed in the court which is a crime…”  

(emphasis supplied)

We specifically put a query to Shri Das, learned Senior  

Advocate appearing on behalf of the State of U.P. as also  

to the learned senior counsel for respondent no.2 to show  

us as to what advantage would the appellant be put to by  

changing the dates from “6” to “16” and “7” to “17” or as  

the case may be “27” and how loss would be caused to the  

respondent no.2.  Learned counsel were not able the answer  

the  question.   At  one  point  of  time  in  the  innumerable  

affidavits which were filed before us and as also in the  

written submissions on behalf of the respondent no.2 it is  

asserted that this has been done by the appellant to save  

the limitation.  We again asked the learned counsel as to  

how the limitation could be saved by adding “1” before the  

figure  “6.5.2002”  and  “7.5.2002  to  which  the  learned  

counsel had no answer and indeed they could not have any  

such answer.  The case of the appellant throughout appears  

to be that she did not do it.  Firstly, she contends that  

she did not file the civil suit on 27.5.2002 because she  

was not present at the time of filing of the civil suit on  

27.5.2002  and  that  the  civil  suits  appear  to  have  been  

1

filed through her counsel Shri O.P. Gupta.  She had made  

very serious allegations against Shri Gupta.  We will not  

go into those allegations as we are not called upon to do  

so nor do we find it necessary to do so.  However, the fact  

remains that even if we presume that somebody interpolated  

the records by adding the figure “1” and even if it is  

presumed  that  the  appellant  did  so,  still  it  does  not  

become a forged document.   

15. The  first  Section  of  the  IPC  alleged  against  the  

appellant is Section 420 and we are at a complete loss to  

understand  as  to  how  the  offence  could  even  be  alleged  

against  the  appellant  on  the  basis  of  the  so-called  

forgery.   Therefore,  that  Section  is  out  of  question.  

Forgery is defined under Section 463 IPC which reads as  

under:

“463. Forgery – Whoever makes any false documents  or false electronic record or part of a document  or electronic record, 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  any express or implied contract, or with intent  to commit fraud or that fraud may be committed,  commits forgery.”

We do not find as to how the change brought in by adding  

figure  “1”  could  cause  damage  or  injury  to  public  or  

1

anybody or how it could support the claim or title or how  

it could cause any person to part with property or for that  

matter how there could be any intention to commit fraund.

16. The second Section alleged is Section 467 IPC which  

reads as under:

“467. Forgery of valuable security, will, etc.-  Whoever forges a document which purports to be a  valuable security, or a will, or an authority to  adopt a son, or which purports to give authority  to any person to make or transfer any valuable  security, or to receive the principal, interest  or dividends thereon, or to receive or delivery  any  money,  movable  property,  or  valuable  security,  or  any  document  purporting  to  be  an  acquittance or receipt acknowledging the payment  of money, or an acquittance or receipt for the  delivery  of  any  movable  property  or  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.”

A mere look at the section would suggest that even this  

office could not be alleged against the appellant.   

17. The next Section is Section 468 IPC which reads as  

under:

“468. Forgery for purpose of cheating – Whoever  commits forgery, intending that the document or  electronic record forged shall be used for the  purpose  of  cheating,  shall  be  punished  with  imprisonment  of  either  description  for  a  term  which may extend to seven years, and shall also  be liable to fine.”

1

This is the aggravated form of forgery which is punishable  

under Section 465 and is defined under Section 464 IPC.  

Section 464 speaks of making a false document.  The Section  

reads as under:

“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 alteration, or

2

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 practiced upon him, he does not know  the contents of the document or electronic record  or the nature of the alteration.”

The  first  clause  suggests  that  person  makes  a  false  document if he –  

(1) dishonestly  or  fraudulently  makes,  signs,  seals  or  executes  a  document,  or  part  of  a  document,  or  makes any mark denoting the execution of a document;  and

(2) does as above with the intention of causing it to  be believed that such document or part of a document  was made, signed, sealed or executed,

(a) by or by the authority of a person by whom or by  whose authority it was not so made, signed, sealed or  executed, or  

(b) at a time at which he knows that it was not made,  signed, sealed or executed;

It is not the case here.  To attract the second clause of  

Section  464  there  has  to  be  alteration  of  document  

dishonestly and fraudulently.  So in order to attract the  

clause “secondly” if the document is to be altered it has  

to be for some gain or with such objective on the part of  

the accused.  Merely changing a document does not make it a  

false document.  Therefore, presuming that the figure “1”  

was added as was done in this case, it cannot be said that  

2

the document became false for the simple reason that the  

appellant had nothing to gain from the same.  She was not  

going to save the bar of limitation.

18. The  last  offence  which  is  alleged  against  the  

appellant  is  Section  471  IPC.   This  section  is  not  

applicable  in  the  case  of  the  appellant  for  the  simple  

reason  that  we  have  already  found  that  there  was  no  

dishonest intention on the part of the appellant nor had  

she acted fraudulently.  This Section applies only in case  

of  the  use  of  a  forged  document  as  a  genuine  document.  

Since we have found that there is no element of forgery at  

all, there would be no question of there being any valid  

allegation against the appellant.

19. We  are  surprised  at  the  manner  in  which  the  

investigation  was  done  and  the  manner  in  which  the  

cognizance was taken by the courts below.  In its written  

submissions also the State has merely justified that the  

figure of “1” was added in order to show that there was no  

latches or negligence for filing civil suits.  We do not  

understand as to how 10 days could have amounted to latches  

or  negligence  because  ultimately  the  suits  seem  to  have  

been filed after 10 days.  The State has also relied upon  

the reported decision in  Bharat Parekh vs.  Central Bureau  

2

of Investigation [(2008) 10 SCC 109] and has justified that  

all  this  can  be  considered  at  the  time  of  framing  of  

charges.  We are surprised at the attitude of the State  

when  it  is  apparent  on  the  record  that  the  whole  

prosecution is malafide, malicious and vengeanceful only to  

settle the scores of respondent no.2 against the appellant.  

A little effort has been made by the State to rely on the  

dismissal of the earlier Transfer Petitions.  We have seen  

the judgment of this Court whereby the Transfer Petitions  

were dismissed.  There is absolutely no relevance of that  

judgment to the present controversy.  There, this Court was  

not called upon to decide as to whether the FIR and the  

other material did suggest any commission of offence by the  

appellant.  This Court simply went on the convenience of  

the  parties  to  reject  the  transfer  petition.   In  fact  

during the debate when we put specific questions as to what  

advantage  would  the  appellant  get  by  aforementioned  so-

called forgery, the learned counsel for State was unable to  

answer.   The  same  was  the  case  with  the  learned  Senior  

Counsel  who  appeared  for  respondent  no.2.   He  was  also  

unable to justify the same.  All through we found that the  

respondent no.2 was more keen than necessary and even after  

the arguments were over, the respondent no.2 has come out  

with the legal submissions whereby he had firstly withdrawn  

2

the power of the learned Senior Counsel who appeared for  

him.   We  have  also  seen  those  legal  submissions.   Very  

interestingly, in those legal submissions, the respondent  

no.2 says in para 2(a):

“the respondent no.2 is the youngest in the whole  family  and  was  kept  to  serve  the  cause  of  my  brother who is elder to me by 16 years.  I was  always  kept  oppressed  and  depressed  and  was  subjected  to  mental  and  physical  torture,  blackmailing & exploitation at the hands of my  brother  &  bhabhi  –  the  petitioner  herein.   My  father died in 1985 and after that my brother &  bhabhi had let loose their terror on me.  This is  for the first time that I have been compelled to  approach the court for my survival.  My brother  was in the Indian Army who had agricultural lands  in  village  Behait,  tehsil  Bilaspur,  Distt.  Rampur.  He had given me power of attorney duly  registered from Dist Saugour, M.P. on 3.4.1970,  which  is  valid  till  today  and  has  not  been  cancelled so far.”

The  expressions  in  the  above  submissions  are  self-

sufficient.  If the respondent no.2 was kept oppressed and  

depressed at the instance of the appellant and her husband,  

we wonder as to how a power of attorney could be given and  

continued in his name.  Further the allegations are wanton,  

irresponsible and irrelevant.  Heavy attempt has been made  

in the legal submissions to refer to the earlier Transfer  

Petitions  which  were  dismissed  by  this  Court.   We  have  

already  shown  as  to  how  the  Transfer  Petitions  were  

irrelevant.  At one place it is suggested as follows:  

2

“The petitioner is wise enough to create equity  in her favour by alleging that she is ailing and  ageing woman of 73 years having daughters and no  son.   There  is  no  provision  in  the  Indian  Constitution which entitles and empowers a senior  citizen of India to commit economic as well as  criminal offences and side by side provides full  protection  and  shelter  from  getting  the  person  persecuted, if found guilty.”

In para 2(e) of his submissions, respondent no. 2 states:

“Now the petitioner has been raising the issue as  to  what  benefit  she  was  going  to  derive  from  forging the dates from 6.5.02 to 16.5.02 and from  7.5.02 to 17.5.02 & 27.5.02.  The correct answer  to  this  has  to  be  given  by  a  person  who  has  committed this fraud as is laid down u/s 106 of  the Evidence Act.  This is a self confessional  case  in  which  the  petitioner  has  mentioned  categorically  that  the  forgery  in  changing  the  dates has been committed by her Advocate.  She is  habitual in committing fraud, whenever she gets  opportunity to do so, just for greed of money and  to get more and more material possession.  If she  was not going to derive any benefit from changing  the dates from 10 to 20 days than why she has  committed  this  fraud.   She  cannot  be  absolved  from  committing  the  forgery  which  requires  her  trial in the appropriate court.  In fact it is  not an ordinary case of condoning the delay of 10  to  20  days  but  is  a  part  of  deep  rooted  conspiracy  to  usurp  and  grab  the  land  of  five  families  consisting  of  40  members  whose  future  and  livelihood  has  been  put  at  stakes  by  the  petitioner.   After  the  land  was  sold  by  her  husband and her daughter through their attorney,  to common relations of both, the respondent no.2  and  the  husband  of  the  petitioner,  the  land  prices  had  gone  up  by  10  times  which  led  the  petitioner to file six cases after a period of 11  years with malafide intention to grab the land.”

(emphasis supplied)

2

We have deliberately quoted the whole para in order to show  

that even the respondent no.2 has not been able to show as  

to how the appellant could be benefited in any manner by  

changing the dates.  We, therefore, find that since there  

was  no  question  of  the  appellant  gaining  anything,  she  

would  not  have  made  the  aforementioned  changes  in  the  

document.  How the document is changed is not for us to  

explain.   However,  whosoever  may  have  changed  those  

documents, the said change did not and could not result in  

any  illegal  gains  to  the  appellant  or  illegal  loss  to  

anybody.   Such changes were, therefore, innocuous and did  

not give rise to any offences.

20. We  do  not  go  into  the  merits  as  we  are  completely  

convinced  that  this  is  a  case  for  a  malicious  and  

vengeanceful  prosecution  which  has  no  base.   It  is,  

therefore, well covered under the Guidelines 1 and 7 laid  

down by this Court in the matter of  State of Haryana vs.  

Bhajan Lal [(1992) Supp. 1 SCC 335] which read as under:

“1. Where  the  allegations  made  in  the  First  Information Report or the complaint, even if  they  are  taken  at  their  face  value  and  accepted  in  their  entirety  do  not  prima- facie constitute any offence or make out a  case against the accused.

2

2-6 xxx xxx xxx

7. Where  a  criminal  proceeding  is  manifestly  attended  with  mala  fide  and/or  where  the  proceeding is maliciously instituted with an  ulterior  motive  for  wreaking  vengeance  on  the accused and with a view to spite him due  to private and personal grudge.”

21. This is apart from the fact that we are completely  

convinced of the whole lack of bona fides on the part of  

the Investigating Officer who is reported to have retired  

now.  Even he has filed a Reply Affidavit before us as we  

had  directed  him  to  attend  the  court  seeing  the  utter  

misuse of his powers of investigation.

22. We  expected  some  explanation  and  some  justification  

for the arrest as well as for the subsequent investigation  

of the non-existing crimes.  Obviously the whole affidavit,  

which we have seen very closely, is silent.  Again reliance  

has been made on the earlier Transfer Petitions by this  

Police  Officer  also  which  is  totally  irrelevant  for  the  

present controversy.  He has not explained as to how he  

viewed the same as an offence of forgery, cheating, etc.,  

2

and for that matter how dishonest intention was deduced by  

him.  

23. In view of the above we are of the clear opinion that  

this prosecution is nothing but an abuse of the process of  

law and we, therefore, allow this appeal, set aside the  

impugned judgment and quash the Prosecution Case No.3045 of  

2004  pending  in  the  court  of  Chief  Judicial  Magistrate,  

Rampur.

…………………………………….J. (Tarun Chatterjee)

………………………………….J. (V.S. Sirpurkar)

New Delhi October 26, 2009

2

2