The single-judge bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court held that the essential ingredient to be attracted for the offence under Sections 467 and 468 IPC is forgery. Forgery is defined in Section 463 IPC that whoever makes any false document is said to be committed forgery.
Brief facts
The factual matrix of the case is that the Petitioner availed loan from the Central Bank of India, and deposited the document as security for a housing loan, without liquidating the housing loan, then, the Petitioner fabricated the sale deed and got it registered at the sub-registrar office and handed over the fake document to the accused no. 1 and the accused no.1 deposited the same in the another branch and availed loan along with other accused. Thereafter, the charge sheet was filed for the offenses under Sections 419, 420, 409, 468, 471, 477A, and 120B of the I.P.C. Aggrieved by this, the present criminal petition is filed under Section 482 CrPC in order to quash the proceedings.
Contentions of the Petitioner
The Petitioner contended that there are no specific allegations against the Petitioner and no registered sale deed was deposited against the Complainant by the Petitioner.
Contentions of the State
The State contended that the Petitioner fabricated the Sale deed and availed loans from the complainant and the ingredients of the offence under Section 420 IPC are clearly attracted to the present case.
The state also relied upon the judgment titled Rajeev Kourav Vs. Baisahab and others.
Observations of the court
The Hon’ble Court observed that forgery is an essential ingredient for an offense under Sections 467 and 468 IPC to be committed. According to Section 463 of the IPC, forgery is defined as the creation of any false document. A document is considered to be made false under Section 464 IPC if it is made, signed, sealed, or executed dishonestly or fraudulently, or if it is only a portion of a document. The essence of the offense is deception.
It was furthermore observed that evidence gathered by the investigation officer clearly points towards the involvement of the accused. Also, all the accused persons were involved in the concerned transactions at the relevant period.
Based on these considerations, the court was of the view that initiation of criminal action against these accused is not malafide, vexatious, and not an abuse of the process of court.
The decision of the court
With the above direction, the court dismissed the criminal Petition.
Case title: Dharmala Venkata Subrahmanya Sarma V. The State of A P and others
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Taralada Rajasekhar Rao
Case No.: CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 10174/2018
Advocate for the Petitioner: S DILIP JAYA RAM
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
