Kerala High Court
M.A. Mohammed Sayyid vs State Of Kerala on 21 July, 2025
1
CRL.MC NO. 212 OF 2021
2025:KER:53572
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M.
MONDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF JULY 2025 / 30TH ASHADHA, 1947
CRL.MC NO. 212 OF 2021
CRIME NO.511/2018 OF VIDYA NAGAR POLICE STATION, Kasargod
AGAINST THE ORDER IN CC NO.79 OF 2020 OF CHIEF
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE ,KASARAGOD
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED
1 M.A. MOHAMMED SAYYID,
AGED 56 YEARS
S/O. ABDULLA M.A., R/AT RAHIM MANZIL, BIVINJA,
THEKKIL FERRY P.O., CHENGALA VILLAGE,
KASARAGOD DISTRICT.
2 MUHAMMED ISHAQ,
AGED 30 YEARS
S/O. AHAMMED ALI, R/AT PAYAVALAPPIL HOUSE,
THEKKIL FERRY, THEKKIL VILLAGE, KASARAGOD
DISTRICT-671315.
BY ADVS.
SRI.A.ARUNKUMAR
SHRI.SOHAIL AHAMMED HARRIS P.P.
RESPONDENTS/STATE/COMPLAINANT
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031.
2
CRL.MC NO. 212 OF 2021
2025:KER:53572
2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
VIDYANAGAR POLICE STATION, (CRIME NO.511 OF
2018) KASARAGOD.
BY SRI.C.K SURESH - PP
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 14.07.2025, THE COURT ON 21.07.2025 PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
3
CRL.MC NO. 212 OF 2021
2025:KER:53572
ORDER
This Crl.M.C is filed by the petitioners who are the accused Nos.1 and 2 in C.C.No.79 of 2020 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kasaragod. They have been charged under Sections 420, 465, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. They seek to quash Annexure A II Final Report in Crime No.511 of 2018 of Vidyanagar Police Station, which is pending as C.C.No.79 of 2020 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kasaragod.
2. The brief facts that are relevant for consideration of this Crl.M.C are as follows:
The petitioners are PWD contractors. They had produced as part of the contract allotment process, fixed deposit receipts as well as treasury deposit receipts, which are alleged to be forged. They had purportedly taken coloured photostat copies of these documents and attempted to pass them off as originals. It is also the contention that though these documents as per the manual, ought to have contained an endorsement that they are pledged with the Bank or the issuing authority for the relevant purpose, some of those 4 CRL.MC NO. 212 OF 2021 2025:KER:53572 documents which when submitted before the authorities have carried such endorsement, which were subsequently produced before the Bank and the Treasury and the amounts were withdrawn. This, according to the prosecution, fortifies the conclusion that the documents had been forged and they had been dishonestly presented before the authorities to fraudulently obtain the benefits of the contract, which had already been assigned to them.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners contends that not even a prima facie case has been made out against his clients and that the offences under which prosecution has been initiated against them are per se unsustainable. It is contended that, insofar as the statements recorded do not reveal that the petitioners have made any correction or alteration in the pledged documents produced before the PWD officials, the offences under Sections 465 and 479 would not be attracted. It is submitted that producing a copy of the original document does not fall within the definition of the offences alleged in the crime and that, insofar as the Government has not sustained any loss, the petitioners have 5 CRL.MC NO. 212 OF 2021 2025:KER:53572 not cheated the Government in any manner. The petitioners had not produced the copies, passing them off as originals as alleged. They had produced the copy along with the originals, which after verification, were returned to them. Thus the allegations raised against the petitioners are not even prima facie sustainable, and the offences charged in Annexere AII Final report has not even been prima facie substantiated. The statements recorded are evasive, and even if the petitioners are made to face a trial based on the chargesheet, it would inevitably end up in their acquittal. So it is prayed that they who are reputed contractors with more than 30 years standing may not be made to suffer the ignominy of facing a trial, as there have never been any allegations or cases against them. Reliance is placed on the dictum laid down in Mohammed Ali K. v. Chinnamma K.M. (2024 KHC 7122) to substantiate the contentions put forth.
4. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor upon instructions submits that the same modus operandi had been followed by the petitioners earlier too, and there are cases registered against them in various police stations. He submits 6 CRL.MC NO. 212 OF 2021 2025:KER:53572 that a string of cases have been registered against both the petitioners on the same count. As against the 1st petitioner, Sri. M.A. Muhammed Sayyid it is submitted that cases have been registered at the Vidyanagar Police Station (Cr..No 503/18 u/s 420,465,468,471 IPC.), Hosdurg Police Station (Cr.No 1045/18 u/s 420,465,468,471 IPC.), Kasaragod Police Station (u/s 420,465,468,471 IPC.) and Adhur Police Station (Cr.No.17/19 u/s 420,465,471 IPC.). As against the 2nd petitioner Muhammed Ishaq, cases have been registered on similar counts before the Vellarikundu Police Station (Cr.No 349/18 u/s 420,465,468,471 IPC) and Vellarikundu Police Station (Cr.No. 339/18 u/s 420, 465,468,471 IPC.).
5. I have heard both sides in detail and have also considered the contentions put forth. I note that this Court had in Mohammed Ali K. (supra) elaborately considered and interpreted the scope and ambit of Sections 463,464,465 and 468 of the IPC. It would be relevant to reproduce paragraphs 18 and 19 of the said judgment, wherein it had been held as follows:
"18. Coming to the essentials to constitute forgery, the same are as under:7
CRL.MC NO. 212 OF 2021 2025:KER:53572
(a) Essential Ingredients. - The elements of forgery are:
(i) The making of a false documents or part of it;
(ii) Such making should be with intent a. To cause damage or injury to (i) public, or (ii) any person; or b. To support any claim or title; or c. To cause any person to part with property; or d. To cause any person to enter into express or implied contract, or e. To commit fraud or that fraud may be committed.
19. ***. But it must either appear on its face to be, in fact, on which, if true, would possess some legal validity. Or in other words, must be legally capable of effecting the fraudulent intent. Until a false document is made either in whole or in part, there cannot be any forgery. Mere preparation for the commission of a possible crime of forgery without a false document in part or in whole cannot itself be either forgery or abetment of forgery. To put it otherwise, it is not correct to say that an offence of forgery in terms of S.464 of IPC comes into being when a person makes a false document and not when a person causes to be made a false document. No word in an enactment is surplusage. The law - making authority, in its wisdom, has used the word "makes" in addition to the other words, such as "signs, seals and executes". The said 8 CRL.MC NO. 212 OF 2021 2025:KER:53572 word has, therefore, to be interpreted independently of the other words referred above. Making a document is different from causing it to be made. As per explanation 2 to S.464 of IPC, it is clarified that for constituting offence under S.464 of IPC, it is imperative that a false document is made and the accused person is the maker of the same."
A perusal of the charge sheet of the case at hand reveals that the ingredients to maintain the charges as against the petitioners have been prima facie made out. Further, while it is the specific case of the petitioners that they had produced the copy along with the originals, and the originals were returned to them by the officers after verification. The case of the prosecution is that the relevant documents as per the manual, are mandated to contain an endorsement by the Bank or by the Treasury that they have been duly pledged for the relevant purpose. However, some of those documents, which, when submitted before the authorities, though carried such endorsement, the originals of the same were subsequently produced before the Bank/Treasury, and the amounts were withdrawn. That the petitioners had taken coloured photocopies of the relevant documents and had forged the 9 CRL.MC NO. 212 OF 2021 2025:KER:53572 pledging endorsement on some of them is also alleged to have attracted the offences charged with. All these, I note, are disputed questions of fact which needs to be thrashed out in a trial.
6. It is trite and settled that the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash the First Information Report is to be exercised in a very sparing manner and is not to be used to choke or smother a legitimate prosecution. [See State Of Telangana vs Habib Abdullah Jeelani & Others [(2017) 2 SCC 779]; M/S Neeharika, Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. The State of Maharashtra and others [(2021) 19 SCC 401] In view of the above discussion, I do not deem the case at hand to be one that calls for the exercise of the jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. The Crl.M.C. fails, and it is dismissed. It is clarified that no opinion has been expressed as merits of the matter and all questions are left open.
Sd/-
SYAM KUMAR V.M. JUDGE smm 10 CRL.MC NO. 212 OF 2021 2025:KER:53572 APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 212/2021 PETITIONER ANNEXURES ANNEXURE AI A TRUE COPY OF THE F.I.R IN CRIME NO.511 OF 2018 OF VIDYANAGAR POLICE STATION.
ANNEXURE AII A TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.511 OF 2018 OF VIDYANAGAR POLICE STATION.