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
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withdrawn.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
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
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:
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
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
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
CRL.MC NO. 212 OF 2021
2025:KER:53572
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.
