Falsifying Pedigree To Create Non-Existent Legal Entities & Identities Prima Facie Amounts To Making False Document U/S 464 IPC: Gujarat High Court
The Court refused to quash 2012 FIR against couple over allegedly forged panchnama and pedigree used for land mutation; noted that merely executing document asserting incorrect ownership claim is not forgery.
Justice P.M.Raval, Gujarat High Court
The Gujarat High Court has observed that falsifying a Pedigree (Pedhinama) to create non-existent legal entities and identities prima facie amounts to making a false document under Section 464 of the IPC, placing the act at the core of forgery. The Court noted that the applicants did not merely assert an unfounded claim of ownership. Prima facie, they fabricated family relationships and showed a living woman, who died in 2005, as dead in 1987 to engineer a right of inheritance. The Court made clear that these observations were for deciding the application only.
Dismissing to quash a 2012 land forgery FIR under Sections 465, 467, 468, 471 and 114 of the IPC, the Court held that the delay was justified by late discovery of the fraud and that successive quashing petitions without changed circumstances are impermissible, the Court dismissed the plea, extending interim relief by eight weeks for an appeal.
A Bench of Justice P. M. Raval observed, “Section 463 IPC defines 'Forgery' as the making of a false document with intent to cause damage or injury, support a claim or title, or commit fraud, with the creation of a 'false document' under Section 464 IPC being its foundational prerequisite. The applicants did not merely execute a deed asserting an unfounded claim of ownership in their own right. Rather, they actively fabricated a Pedigree (Pedhinama) and Panchnama, falsified a living person’s legal timeline by projecting Kamuben as dead in 1987 when she survived until 2005, and created fictitious family relationships. Falsifying Pedigree to create non-existent legal entities and identities constitutes the making of a false document under Section 464 IPC, placing the act at the very core of forgery”
Senior Advocate R. R. Marshall Appeared for the applicants K. M. Antani, APP appeared for the respondent.
In the matter, the FIR, was registered, alleging that the applicants falsely showed the wife as the niece of the complainant's grandmother, Dahiben, and had a mutation entry made in her favour on January 19, 1987, on the basis of a forged pedigree and panchnama.
The District Collector cancelled the entry in suo motu revision proceedings on September 14, 2011. The complainant filed the FIR after those proceedings began. The applicants' earlier quashing petition was withdrawn on January 30, 2013. This application was filed in 2015, and interim relief operated from April 15, 2015.
The applicants argued that the FIR was delayed by decades, that the dispute was civil, and that a civil suit was pending. The State and complainant argued that the second petition was not maintainable and that the documents disclosed forgery.
The Court applied State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal and noted that forgery requires a "false document", relying on Sheila Sebastian and Mohd. Ibrahim. It found that the applicants did not merely assert an unfounded claim. It relied on witness statements recorded in the investigation and on a consent deed bearing only the thumb impression of an illiterate woman.
“It is well settled that a person does not commit forgery merely by executing a document asserting ownership or a right over a property, even if such claim is legally incorrect, disputed or ultimately found to be unsustainable. What is required is that the execution of the document itself must be fraudulent or dishonest. To constitute forgery, a person must dishonestly or fraudulently make, sign or execute a false document with the intention of causing it to be believed that the document was made, signed or executed by another person or under the authority of another person. A person signing a document in his own name, even while asserting an incorrect claim, does not thereby create a false document so as to attract the offence of forgery”, the Bench noted.
The Court found the delay explained, as the complainant lodged the FIR on learning of the fraud in 2011. It said its observations were made only for deciding this application.
The Court dismissed the application, discharged the rule and vacated interim relief. On the applicants' request to approach the Supreme Court, it continued the interim relief for eight weeks.
Cause Title: Mahendrabhai Chandubhai Patel & Anr. v. State of Gujarat & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026:GUJHC:60833).
Appearances:
Applicants: R. R. Marshall, Senior Advocate, Aditya R. Parikh, Advocate.
Respondent: K. M. Antani, APP, Virat G. Popat, Advocate.