Mere Non-Traceability Of Document Does Not Make It Forged; Forgery Must Satisfy Section 464 IPC: Supreme Court
The Apex Court held that merely because a document is not traceable in official records after several years of its issuance, it cannot be termed a forged document. A document would amount to forgery only when it satisfies the ingredients of a “false document” within the meaning of Section 464 of the Indian Penal Code.
Justice P.S. Narasimha, Justice Manoj Misra, Supreme Court
The Supreme Court has clarified that the mere absence of a document in official records after the passage of time does not ipso facto render it forged. To constitute forgery, the Court clarified, there must be specific allegations attracting the definition of a “false document” under Section 464 of the Indian Penal Code.
The Court was hearing a criminal appeal challenging the dismissal of a writ petition seeking quashing of an FIR registered under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC in relation to a Joint Venture Agreement concerning the development of immovable property.
A Bench comprising Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Manoj Misra examined whether the allegations in the FIR disclosed the commission of cognizable offences or merely reflected a civil dispute arising from contractual obligations, and observed that “merely because a document is not traceable in the records after several years of its issuance, it cannot be said that the document is forged.”
The Bench further clarified that “…a document would be considered forged document only when the allegations are to the effect that it is a false document within the meaning of section 464 of the I.P.C.”
Background
The dispute arose from a Joint Venture Agreement (JVA) executed between the parties for the development of a plot of land. Under the agreement, development rights were granted, and a security amount was paid for due performance of contractual obligations.
Subsequently, disputes arose between the parties. An FIR was lodged alleging that despite receiving the security amount, possession of land was not handed over; that false representations were made regarding title and absence of litigation; and that forged documents had been submitted to deceive the complainant.
The accused approached the High Court seeking quashing of the FIR, contending that the dispute was purely civil in nature and arose from alleged breach of contractual obligations. The High Court dismissed the writ petition in limine, leading to the present appeal.
Court’s Observations
At the outset, the Supreme Court reiterated that while considering a prayer for quashing an FIR, the allegations are ordinarily to be taken at face value. However, where the dispute is essentially civil in nature, the Court must examine whether a criminal colour has been artificially given to a contractual dispute and whether continuation of proceedings would amount to abuse of process.
Upon examining the Joint Venture Agreement, the Court found that there was no specific representation that no litigation was pending in respect of the property. The agreement contained assurances regarding the absence of attachment or restraint orders and provided indemnity about title, but it did not contain a categorical declaration that no dispute whatsoever existed.
The Court further observed that the security deposit under the agreement was not refundable but adjustable against the share of sale proceeds. Therefore, non-refund of the security amount could not constitute criminal breach of trust; at best, it could give rise to civil remedies.
Addressing the allegation of forgery, the Court noted that the complainant relied upon a letter purportedly issued by a Tehsildar stating that the property was ancestral and undisputed. The contention was that since the letter was not traceable in the issuing office after several years, it must be forged.
Rejecting this argument, the Court underscored that merely because a document is not traceable in the records after several years of its issuance, it cannot be said that the document is forged. The Bench observed that certificates or letters of such nature are not necessarily maintained in perpetuity, and non-traceability after a decade does not establish fabrication.
The Court further clarified that a document would be considered a forged document only when the allegations are to the effect that it is a false document within the meaning of Section 464 of the I.P.C.
After reproducing the statutory definition under Section 464 IPC, the Court found that there were no allegations that the document was dishonestly or fraudulently made, altered, or executed in the manner contemplated by the provision.
On the allegation of cheating, the Court held that there was no material to indicate dishonest intention from inception. The Joint Venture Agreement was executed years before the FIR was lodged, and there was nothing to suggest that the accused had agreed with fraudulent intent.
The Court concluded that the dispute stemmed from alleged non-fulfilment of contractual obligations and competing claims regarding title matters properly falling within the domain of civil law.
Conclusion
Holding that the FIR disclosed only a civil cause of action and that the essential ingredients of cheating, criminal breach of trust or forgery were not made out, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order.
The impugned FIR and all consequential proceedings were quashed.
Cause Title: Vandana Jain & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 192)