P.V.Khullar vs Cbi
2010 Latest Caselaw 3739 Del

                  * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                                      Date of Reserve: July 29, 2010
                                                    Date of Order: 11th August, 2010

W.P. (Crl.) No. 655/2010 & Crl. M.A. No. 5616/2010
%
                                                                            11.08.2010

P.V. KHULLAR                                                        ... Petitioner
                                Through: Mr. Vijay Aggarwal, Advocate

                Versus

CBI                                                              ... Respondent
                                Through: Ms Suchiti Chandra for Mr. Vikas Pahwa
                                Standing Counsel for CBI.


JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA

1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?    Yes.

2. To be referred to the reporter or not?                                   Yes.

3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest?                           Yes.

JUDGMENT

1. While arguing this petition, the petitioner did not press the petition so

far as charges under Section 420 IPC was concerned, but, submitted that no

charge under Section 468 & 471 IPC could have been framed against the

petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that mere false statements

made in a document does not amount to forgery of the document, therefore,

charges of forgery under Section 468 & 471 IPC could not have been levied

against the petitioner. He submitted that Sections 468 &471 IPC can be levied

only where the petitioner had indulged into creating false documents or had

forged some signatures. He submitted that in the present case, the petitioner

had not forged any signatures and no document was sent to CFSL.

2. A bare perusal of definition of forgery, as contained in Sections 463 &

464 of IPC, would show that forgery does not essentially mean forgery of

signatures or creation of forged documents or making changes in a document

only. Forgery includes and means making false documents or false record or

creating a part of the document as false document with intention to cause

damage.

3. In the present case, the petitioner was involved in creation of falsified

accounts of the company, in order to cheat the bank. The false accounts of

company were used for cheating. In view of this I consider that Trial Court

rightly framed charges under Sections 468 & 471 of IPC as well.

4. I find no force in this petition. The petition is dismissed.

11th AUGUST, 2010                          SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA, J.
acm