CRLP (A) 17169 2014
CRLP (A) 17169 2014
AFR
Reservedon10.09.2015
Deliveredon23.09.2015
CourtNo.34
1.CRIMINALMISC.WRITPETITIONNo.17169of2014
Petitioner:Sh.SuneelGalgotiaAndAnother
Respondent:StateOfU.P.ThruSecy.And3Others
CounselforPetitioner:SwetashwaAgarwal,Anil
Tiwari,S.K.Dubey,SamitGopal
CounselforRespondent:Govt.Advocate,D.Kumar
Mishra,ManishTiwary,TarunAgrawal,YogeshAgrawal
2.CRIMINALMISC.WRITPETITIONNo.19146of2014
Petitioner:Smt.JugnuGalgotia
Respondent:StateOfU.P.ThruSecy.And3Others
CounselforPetitioner:SamitGopal
CounselforRespondent:Govt.Advocate,YogeshAgarwal
3.CRIMINALMISC.WRITPETITIONNo.19562of2014
Petitioner:Km.AradhanaGalgotia
Respondent:StateOfU.P.ThruSecy.And3Others
CounselforPetitioner:SamitGopal
CounselforRespondent:Govt.Advocate,YogeshAgarwal
4.CRIMINALMISC.WRITPETITIONNo.21078of2014
Petitioner:Smt.ChandrikaMathurAndAnother
Respondent:StateOfU.P.ThruSecy.And3Others
CounselforPetitioner:SamitGopal
CounselforRespondent:Govt.Advocate,D.K.Mishra
Hon'bleSudhirAgarwal,J.
Hon'bleBrijeshKumarSrivastavaII,J.
(DeliveredbyHon'bleSudhirAgarwal,J.)
1.
factsandlawandhavearisenagainstthesamefirstinformation
report(inshortFIR)dated09.09.2014i.e.casecrimeno.862of
2014underSections420,467,468,471,120BIPC,P.S.Hariparvat,
Agra,hencehavebeenarguedcollectivelyandarebeingdecided
bythiscompositejudgment.
2.
Attheoutset,itmaybe pointedoutthatinthesematters
interimorderswerepassedbythisCourtwhereagainstrespondent
no.4 took the matter before Apex Court in appeal. The Court
observingthatsinceitwasagainstaninterimorder,declinedto
interfere,videorderdated10.04.2015butdirectedthisCourtto
disposeofallwritpetitionsonthenextdateofhearing,preferably
withinonemonthfromthatdate.
3.
Allthesematterswerenominatedon22.7.2015byHon'ble
theChiefJusticetotheBenchpresidedoverbyoneofus(Hon'ble
SudhirAgarwal,J.)pursuantwhereto,thesecaseshavecometous
Wehaveheardthepartiesfinallyanddecideonmeritshereunder.
4.
CriminalMisc.WritPetitionNo.17169of2014(hereinafter
CriminalMisc.WritPetitionNo.19146of2014(hereinafter
referredtoassecondpetition)hascomeupattheinstanceof
Smt.JugnuGalgotiawifeofLt.P.D.Galgotia,oneofGuarantorsin
respect of loan agreements and also Treasurer of Management
CommitteeoftheSociety.
6.
CriminalMisc.WritPetitionNo.19562of2014(hereinafter
7.
CriminalMisc.WritPetitionNo.21078of2014(hereinafter
referredtoasfourthpetition),hasbeenfiledbySmt.Chandrika
MathurwifeofSriAshokMathur,andSriRaghuvanshMathurson
ofLt.Dr.ShantiSwaroopMathur,bothbeingofficebearersofthe
SocietyandthusaccusedintheimpugnedFIR.
8.
Inallthewritpetitionsprayeriscommon,i.e.,forquashing
oftheFIRdated09.09.2014i.e.casecrimeno.862of2014under
Sections 420, 467,468,471, 120B IPC, P.S. Hariparvat, District
Agra.
9.
Petitionerno.1inthefirstpetitionandotherpetitionersin
defaultoccurredandpostdatedchequesreceivedbyrespondent
no. 4 returned dishonoured, as a result whereof, there arose a
disputebetweentheparties.
10.
11.
petitionandpartieshaveagreedtoreferitinallotherpetitions
also.IthasbeenswornbyMahendraKumarDixit,LegalManager
of Financier. It is said that petitioner has cheated Financier by
claimingthatGalgotiasUniversityistheassetofSociety,though
both are independent and different legal entities, incapable of
being owned by either one. Balancesheets filed by Society are
false, and, fabricated to induce Financier to advance huge loan
amount. If separate balancesheets of two independent bodies
wouldhavebeenfiled,Financierwouldnothaveadvancedloanto
theextentofsuchahugeamount.ItisadmittedthatSocietyhad
been advanced loan from time to time by Financier in the last
morethanadecadevide40agreementswhichhadbeenentered
bySocietywithopeneyesafterunderstandingprosandconsof
stipulationscontainedintheagreement.Theamountclaimedasa
latefeebyFinancieriswithinthetermsoftheagreementanddoes
not violate guidelines laid down by Reserve Bank of India
(hereinafterreferredtoasRBI).Thesocietyisbusyinmaking
money under the cloak of charitable society. There are serious
allegations of fraud, misappropriations, breach of trust and
extortionofmoneyfromstudents.Thesocietyhassucceededin
defrauding public at large, students, employees, contractors etc.
includingFinancier.Initially,Societywasrunningtwoeducational
institutionsnamely,GIMT(GalgotiasInstituteofManagementand
Technology)andGalgotiasCollegeofEngineering.Subsequently,
another one, i.e., Galgotias' business school was also added.
ThoughunderSection2(1)ofU.P.Act2011,itisprovidedthat
existing college means institution which imparts professional
education and it is proposed to be merged down, run and
maintainedbytheUniversitybutinthelastthreeyears,nomerger
AnaffidavithasbeenfiledbyInvestigatingOfficerannexing
contendedthathereisasimplecaseofadvancementofloanand
allegeddefaultinrepayment,inrespectofwhich,proceedingsof
arbitration are pending before sole Arbitrator. No element of
criminality is involved. Hence, FIR lodged against petitioners,
thoughhasattemptedtosatisfyingredientsofvariousprovisions
mentionedtherein,butineffect,itinvolvesapureandsimplecivil
dispute,hence,nocriminalcasecanbeinitiatedinsuchmatters
and report is liable to be set aside. No offence under various
provisionsmentionedintheFIRhasbeencommitted.ThisCourt
whileexamining,whetherallegationscontainedinFIRsatisfyall
ingredientsofoffence,showingthataccusedhas/havecommitted
suchanoffence,willconsidernotonlythemerementionofwords
chosenbyinformant/complainantbutwillalsolookintosubstance
tofindoutwhetheritisacasewherethereisanycriminalityor
elementofcriminalintention,constitutingoffenceunderalleged
provision.Literalreadingofreportwouldhavetobeavoidedfor
the reason that these days FIRs are lodged with expert legal
opinion and, therefore, one can understand that language of
relevantprovisionswhicharementionedinthereportmusthave
beentakencareofbytheauthortouseandinsuchcircumstances,
carehastobetakentofindoutwhetheritisacase,substantially,
involvingelementofcriminalityornot.TheCourtwouldpeepinto
backgroundfactstofindouttruecontroversy,intentionandnature
ofdisputeandwouldnotbeguidedbybaresimplereadingofFIR.
14.
Percontra,SriBrijeshSahai,learnedcounselappearingfor
noticethecasesetoutbycomplainant/informantintheimpugned
FIR.TheFIRinteraliastatesthatinformantisAssistantManager
inS.E.InvestmentsLtd.,havingitsHeadOfficeat54,SanjayPlace,
Agra. The Society (Smt. Shakuntala Educational and Welfare
Society) through its office bearers namely, Suneel Galgotia,
President of Society and other petitioners had been obtaining
severalloansforthelast12yearsfromtheaforesaidcompany,on
thebasisofbalancesheetsandotherdocuments.Inthemeantime,
in 2011 the Society secured right from State Government to
sponsorGalgotiasUniversityandbetween2011and2012secured
10 loans by furnishing balance sheets, income and expenditure
accountsetc.Now,theinformanthascometoknowaboutforged
balance sheets and income expenditure accounts were filed by
Societyundercertainconspiracyforthepurposeofsecuringloan.
All loans were obtained from Surya Nagar Branch of Punjab
National Bank, Agra. President of aforesaid Society Sri Suneel
Galgotia and other office bearers while taking loan had
represented that Galgotias University is under the ownership of
Smt. Shankuntala Educational and Welfare Society and entire
assetsandliabilitiesofUniversityarevestedinSociety.Itwasonly
on 25.07.2014, the informant came to know the truth that
GalgotiasUniversity,UttarPradesh,isaseparatecorporatebody,
established under Galgotias University Act, 2011 and Smt.
Shankuntala Educational and Welfare Society is a separate and
independententity,registeredundertheSocietiesRegistrationAct,
1860. The two are separate, distinct and independent legal
corporate bodies and their assets, liabilities and expenses are
separate. Thus fraud was played upon informant's company, by
filing forged and fabricated documents under preplanned
conspiracy, in order to cause benefit to Society and harm the
Financier company. Thus, petitioners have committed offence in
obtainingloans.TheofficebearersofSocietyhaveissuedfalseand
incorrect balance sheets and audit report dated 09.07.2014,
whereinUniversityhasbeenshown,beingownedbySocietyand
on that basis and thereby Society has secured unwanted huge
loansasalsoenjoyedfacilityofoverdraft.TheSocietyhadbeen
10
maybepenneddownfirst.
17.
GovernmentofNCT,NewDelhivideRegistrationCertificatedated
27.8.1998.Ithasshownitsregisteredofficeas4405/06,Prakash
ApartmentsII,5,AnsariRoad,DaryaGanj,NewDelhi.Theinitial
GoverningBodyhadfollowingnamesanddesignations:
(i) SuneelGalgotia,Gurgaon,HaryanaPesident
(ii)
Smt.PadminiGalgoia,Gurgaon,HaryanaSecretary
11
Member
(v)
SrikanthVasuRaj,BangaloreExecutiveMember
Member
(xi) AswaniGupta,Jalandhar,PunjabExecutiveMember
18.
Itsaimsandobjectivesincludedthefollowing:
(i)
Toarrange,establishandrunprimary,middleand/or
universityforcarryingoutresearchandimpartingeducation
in any field such as technology, art, science, commerce,
management, medicine, finance, economics, music, dance,
acting,sport,communicationetc.
(iii) To provide libraries, publish books on educational
social subjects organize discussions and seminars promote
knowledge and understanding amongst the children and
generalpublic.
12
magazinesandperiodicalsandotherpublicationsindifferent
languagesforthepropagationsofaboveaimsandobjects.
(vi) To arrange and organise social, cultural and
educationalprogrammesfromtimetotime.
(vii) Tomakecorrespondenceinlawfulmannertoarrange
meetings, conferences, seminars with the authorities
concerned.
19.
advancementofloanfromrespondentno.4since2000.Itappears
that between the Society and respondent no. 4 several loan
agreementswereexecutedbetween6.4.2011to29.11.2012(total
tenagreements),detailswhereofareasunder:
Sl.No. DateofAgreement FinancedAmount(inRs.)
13
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
21.
06.04.2011
28.12.2011
30.12.2011
21.01.2012
21.01.2012
21.01.2012
21.01.2012
02.03.2012
20.03.2012
29.11.2012
2,25,00,000
2,00,00,000
4,00,00,000
3,00,00,000
3,40,00,000
3,60,00,000
5,00,00,000
5,00,00,000
4,00,00,000
5,35,00,000
31.03.2000theassetsofSocietywereshownasRs.2.31crores
whileon31.03.2013,thesameareshownasRs.360.13crores.It
appears that Society already established an institution to be
established as University inasmuch in the returns of Assessment
Year201112(FinancialYearendingon31.03.2011),ithadshown
anexcessofincomeoverexpendituretransferredfromGalgotias
University, as Rs. 2258447.15. The Income and Expenditure
Account of Galgotias University for Assessment Year 201112
(FinancialYearendingon31.03.2011)hasbeenplacedonrecord
showingtransferofRs.2258447.15tothebalancesheetwhichis
actuallyincomefrominterest.Itwasauditedon18.08.2011.
23.
14
betweentheSocietyandrespondentno.4on06.04.2011onwhich
date,UniversitywasnotastatutoryUniversity,havingnotcome
into existence with a statutory status whatsoever. All the
agreementsareinFinancialYears201112and201213.Infact
nineagreementsoutoftenarebetween01.04.2011to31.03.2012,
i.e.,in201112andthelasttenthoneisdated29.11.2012inthe
201213.OnlythereturnofAssessmentYear201112(Financial
Year ending on 31.03.2011) was available when nine loan
agreementswereexecuted.Further,U.P.Act2011wasnotevenin
existenceatthattime.
24.
07.04.2011.SomesalientfeaturesoftheActareasunder.
(i)
ThestatusofSocietyisthatofasponsoringbodyofthe
University.ItisdefinedinSection2(o).
(ii)
15
andthereafterseveralauthoritiesstatedinSection10.
(vi) Power of appointment of Chancellor and Pro
ChancellorhasbeenconferreduponSocietyandrestofthe
OfficershavetobeappointedbyChancellororotherOfficers.
(vii)Section11(2)declaresthatChancellorbyvirtueofhis
Office shall be the Headof Universityand shallconstitute
interimExecutiveCouncil.
(viii) Section23providesthatExecutiveCouncilshallbethe
principalexecutivebodyoftheUniversity.
(ix) Various administrative, academic and other functions
are given to various authorities of University. The
managementtotheSocietyhasbeengivenoverUniversity
only to the extent of appointing Chancellor and Pro
Chancellor but thereafter the entire management and
functionisinthehandsofvariousauthoritiesandofficersof
16
University,describedinvariousprovisionsofU.P.Act,2011.
(x)
ThereisaPlanningBoardtoensureinfrastructureand
academicsupportsystem,meetingthenormsofUniversity
GrantsCommissionortherespectiveCouncils.
(xi)ThereisaFinanceCommitteecontemplatedtotakecare
of financial matters and there is an Academic Council
contemplated to take care of academic functions of
University.
(xii) Section 31 requires audit of annual accounts of
University.
(xiii)Withregardtothegenerationoffunds,U.P.Act,2011
hasmadeseveralprovisions.Theinitialcontributionhasto
bemadebytheSociety.
(xiv) Section41contemplatesthatSocietyshallestablisha
PermanentEndowmentFund ofatleastRs.10Crore.The
powertoinvesttheamountintheaforesaidfunds,thereafter,
isvestedinUniversityvideSection41(2).
(xv) The another kind of fund is General Fund, which is
governed vide Section 42. It provides that University shall
establishageneralfundtowhichfollowingamountshallbe
credited,namely,
(a)allfees,whichmaybechargedbyUniversity;
(b)allsumsreceivedfromanyothersource;
(c)allcontributionsmadebySociety;and,
(d)allcontributionsmadeinthisbehalfbyanyother
personorbodywhicharenotprohibitedbyanylawfor
thetimebeinginforce.
(xvi) Section 42(2) provides that the money credited to
general funds shall be applied to meet all the recurring
expendituresofUniversity.
17
(xvii)AthirdkindoffundisprovidedvideSection43,i.e.,
Development Fund. University is obliged to establish a
Development Fund and the following money shall be
creditedtherein:
(a) development fees, which may be charged from
students;
(b) all sums received from other sources for the
purposeofthedevelopmentoftheUniversity;
(c)allcontributionsmadebytheSociety;
(d)allcontributionsmadeinthisbehalfbyanyother
personorbodywhicharenotprohibitedbyanylawfor
thetimebeinginforce;and
(e) all incomes received from the permanent
endowmentfund.
(xviii) Section 43(2) provides that money credited to
Development Fund from time to time shall be utilized for
developmentofUniversity.
(xix) Section 44 authorizes the Court, a body constituted
videSection22,tosupervise,control,regulateandmaintain
thethreefundsestablishedunderSection41,42and43in
suchmannerasmaybeprescribed.
(xx) Section 52 contemplates the situation in case where
University is dissolved and provides that all assets and
property including permanent endowment fund, general
fundoranyotherfundandalsotheliabilitiesofUniversity
will belong to the Society. This provision, therefore, will
come into picture only when University is dissolved as
providedinSection48.
25.
Ithasnotcomeonrecordastowhencertificateforstartof
18
IntheincometaxreturnsfortheAssessmentYear201213
(FinancialYearendingon31.03.2011),theexcessofincomeover
expenditureinrespecttoGalgotiasUniversityhasbeenshownas
Rs.42892188inincomeandexpenditureaccounts.Onpage238,
balancesheet of Galgotias University as on 31.03.2012, is on
recordinfirstpetitionshowingPermanentEndowmentFundofRs.
ten crores and development fund of Rs. 10388759/. We are
informedthatSuneelGalgotiahasbeenappointedasChancellorof
UniversityandSmt.PadminiGalgotiahasbeenappointedasPro
chancellor. In the subsequent balancesheets also, Society has
disclosedincome,expenditureandbalancesheetofUniversityasa
partofitsownstatementofaccountsandbalancesheetbesides
othereducationalinstitutionswithwhichwearenotconcerned.
27.
Inabsenceofanyinformation,materialorcertificateunder
19
examinetheprovisionsunderwhichFIRhasbeenlodged,tofind
outwhataretheingredientswhichwehavetoanalyzeintheFIR
inquestion,whethertheyaresatisfiedornot.TheFIRhasbeen
lodgedunderSections420,467,468,471readwithSection120B
I.P.C.
29.
Section420ischeatingwhichisdefinedinSection415.
20
Inordertoattractallegationsofcheating,followingthings
mustexist:
(i)
deceptionofaperson;
(ii)
(A)fraudulentordishonestinducementofthatperson,
(a) todeliveranypropertytoanyperson;or,
(b) toconsentthatanypersonshallretainanyproperty,
(B)intentionalinducingthatpersontodooromittodo
anything,
(a)whichhewouldnotdooromitifhewasnotso
deceived,and,
(b) such act or omission causes or is likely to cause
damage or harm to that person in body, mind,
reputationorproperty.
31.
ingredientsare:
(i)
cheating;
(ii)
dishonestinducementtodeliverpropertyortomakeor
destroy any valuable security or any thing which is
sealedorsignedoriscapableofbeingconvertedintoa
valuablesecurity;and,
(iii) mensreaofaccusedatthetimeofmakinginducement
andwhichactofomission.
32.
InMahadeoPrasadVs.StateofWestBengal,AIR1954SC
In JaswantraiManilalAkhaneyVs.StateofBombay,AIR
21
1956SC575theCourtsaidthataguiltyintentionisanessential
ingredientoftheoffenceofcheating.Fortheoffenceofcheating,
"mensrea"onthepartofthatperson,mustbeestablished.
34.
InG.V.RaoVs.L.H.V.Prasadandothers,2000(3)SCC693,
theCourtsaidthatSection415 hastwoparts.Whileinthefirst
part, the person must "dishonestly" or "fraudulently" induce the
complainant to deliver any property and in the second part the
personshouldintentionallyinducethecomplainanttodooromit
todoathing.Inotherwordsinthefirstpart,inducementmustbe
dishonest or fraudulent while in the second part, inducement
shouldbeintentional.
35.
In HridayaRanjanPrasadVermaandothersVs.Stateof
Biharandanother,2000(4)SCC168 thesetwoprovisionscame
upforconsideration.Therewerethreebrothers,HridayaRanjan
PrasadVerma,ManoranjanPrasadVermaandRajivRanjanPrasad
VermasonsoflateSriKashiNathPrasadVerma.Theyhadthree
more brothers but they were not involved in the proceedings,
therefore,thejudgmenthasexcludedthem.Fatherofthesethree
brothers was owner of Khasra No. 213, Plot No. 1172, Village
Srinagar,P.S.Siwan(Bihar).Onhisdeathhissixsonsincluding
aforesaid three brothers succeeded to the property. Sri Hridaya
Ranjan Prasad Verma was a Neurosurgeon at Patna. Sri
Manoranjan Prasad Verma was Manager of Pathar Jhora Tea
Gardens in Jalpaiguri (West Bengal). Sri Rajiv Ranjan Prasad
Verma was a retired Marketing Manager of Jay Shree Tea and
Industries Ltd., Delhi. There was a housing society, namely,
Kanishka Sahkari Grih Nirman Samiti Limited, Sewan, a
Cooperative Society engaged in purchasing land from different
persons and after developing and dividing it into small pieces,
selling the plots to customers. Sri Manish Prasad Singh, an
22
23
aforesaidvendorsstatedthatplaintiffdidnotpresshisprayerfor
injunctioninrespectofSchedule4property.Between09.12.1992
to18.12.1992theSecretaryofSocietysoldaportionofdisputed
landtoseveralotherpersons.Whenchequeswerebounced,the
vendorsrequestedSecretaryofSocietyforpaymentofamountbut
except of promise todoso, he did not pay. On 21.10.1995 the
aforesaidvendorsthroughtheirAdvocatessentnoticetoSociety
reminding it that cheques issued by it had bounced due to
insufficiency of funds. Thereafter FIR was lodged under Section
406,420,120BIPCatPoliceStationSiwanon22.11.1995.Inthe
saidFIRtheSecretaryofSocietyaswellasoneAvdeshNarayan
Rai, VicePresident, were named as accused. Police after
investigationfiledchargesheetagainstbothofthem.Besides,the
vendors also filed three suits for realization of amount due to
them.On14.12.1995theSecretaryofSocietyfiledComplaintNo.
1282 of 1995 before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Siwan against
vendorsallegingcommissionofoffencesunderSection418,420,
423,469,504and120BIPC.ThevendorsmovedtheCourtfor
quashingofaforesaidcomplaintbutfailed,hencecametoApex
Court.ItisinthisbackgroundtheCourtconsidered,whetherin
the complaint lodged at the instance of Secretary of Society,
ingredientsofSection415or420IPCaresatisfiedornot.
36.
thatinthedefinitionof'cheating'therearesetforthtwoseparate
classesofactswhichthepersondeceivedmaybeinducedtodo.In
thefirstplacehemaybeinducedfraudulentlyordishonestlyto
deliveranypropertytoanyperson.Thesecondclassofactsset
forthinthesectionisthedoingoromittingtodoanythingwhich
thepersondeceivedwouldnotdooromittodoifhewerenotso
deceived.Inthefirstclassofcases,inducingmustbefraudulentor
24
InHiraLalHarilalBhagwatiVs.CBI,NewDelhi,2003(5)
SCC257 theCourtsaidthattoholdapersonguiltyofcheating
under Section 415 IPC it is necessary to show that he has
fraudulentordishonestintentionatthetimeofmakingpromise
withanintentiontoretainproperty.TheCourtfurthersaid:
Section 415 of the Indian Penal Code which defines
cheating, requires deception of any person (a) inducing that
personto:(i)todeliveranypropertytoanyperson,or(ii)to
consent that any person shall retain any property OR (b)
intentionallyinducingthatpersontodooromittodoanything
whichhewouldnotdooromitifhewerenotsodeceivedand
25
whichactoromissioncausesorislikelytocausedamageor
harmtothatperson,anybody'smind,reputationorproperty.In
viewoftheaforesaidprovisions,theappellantsstatethatperson
may be induced fraudulently or dishonestly to deliver any
propertytoanyperson.Thesecondclassofactssetforthinthe
Sectionisthedoingoromittingtodoanythingwhichtheperson
deceivedwouldnotdooromittodoifhewerenotsodeceived.
Inthefirstclassofcases,theinducingmustbefraudulentor
dishonest. In the second class of acts, the inducing must be
intentionalbutnotfraudulentordishonest.
39.
InDevenderKumarSinglaVs.BaldevKrishanSingh2004
(2)JT539(SC),itwasheldthatmakingofafalserepresentation
isoneoftheingredientsofoffenceofcheating.
40.
SCC736insimilarcircumstancesofadvancementofloanagainst
hypothecation,thecomplainantreliedonIllustrations(f)and(g)
toSection415,whichreadasunder:
"(f)AintentionallydeceivesZintoabeliefthatAmeanstorepay
any money that Z may lend to him and thereby dishonestly
inducesZtolendhimmoney,Anotintendingtorepayit.A
cheats."
"(g).AintentionallydeceivesZintoabeliefthatAmeansto
delivertoZacertainquantityofindigoplantwhichhedoesnot
intendtodeliver,andtherebydishonestlyinducesZtoadvance
moneyuponthefaithofsuchdelivery.Acheats;butifA,atthe
timeofobtainingthemoney,intendstodelivertheindigoplant,
andafterwardsbreakshiscontactanddoesnotdeliverit,he
doesnotcheat,butisliableonlytoacivilactionforbreachof
contract."
26
41.
TheCourtsaidthatcruxofthepostulateisintentionofthe
personwhoinducesvictimofhisrepresentationandnotthenature
of the transaction which would become decisive in discerning
whethertherewascommissionofoffenceornot.TheCourtalso
referredtoitsearlierdecisionsin RajeshBajajVs.StateNCTof
Delhi,1999(3)SCC259 andheldthatitisnotnecessarythata
complainant should verbatim reproduce in the body of his
complaintalltheingredientsoftheoffenceheisalleging.Norisit
necessarythatthecomplainantshouldstateinsomanywordsthat
theintentionoftheaccusedwasdishonestorfraudulent.
42.
another,2007(7)SCC373itwasheldthatifnoactofinducement
onthepartofaccusedisallegedandnoallegationismadeinthe
complaint that there was any intention to cheat from the very
inception,therequirementofSection415readwithSection420
IPC would not be satisfied. The Court relied on the earlier
decisions in HridayaRanjanPrasadVerma(supra) and Indian
OilCorporationVs.NEPCIndiaLtd.(supra).
43.
InsupportofthecontentionthatnooffenceunderSection
420I.P.C.ismadeout,SriChaturvediplacedrelianceondecisions
of Apex Court in Mohammad Ibrahim andothersVs. State of
Biharandanother(2009)8SCC751 and ParminderKaurVs.
State of Uttar Pradesh and another (2010) 1 SCC 322. He
contended that Society being owner of University has rightly
included assets, funds and liabilities of University in its own
consolidatedaccountsandbalancesheet.Thereisnocheatingor
fraudorforgery.
44.
wereprosecutedbyMagistrateunderSection323,342,420,461,
471and504I.P.C.Theprosecutioncommencedafteracomplaint
27
againstMohammadIbrahimandtwootherswasfiledbysecond
respondentbeforeChiefJudicialMagistrateundersection156(3)
Cr.P.C., who took cognizance and referred the complaint for
investigation, pursuant whereto, Police registered F.I.R. dated
10.10.2003andafterinvestigationsubmittedachargesheetunder
theaforesaidSections.TheadmittedfactsbeforetheCourtwere
thatfirstaccusedandthecomplainantwerecousins.BadriMian
(paternalgrandfatherofcomplainant)andMithuMian(maternal
grandfather of first accused) were brothers and owners of plot
number1973and1971.TheplotswereinheritedbysonofBadri
Mian,fatherofcomplainantandchildrenofMithuMianoneof
whomwasGirja,motherofMohammadIbrahimfirstaccused.As
perafamilyarrangement,aportionofthesaidplotscametothe
share of Girja, mother of first accused and that portion was in
possessionofherhusband,whogotitmutatedinhisname,paid
land revenue; and after his death, the said land came into
possessionofherson,i.e.,firstaccused.Hisnamewasenteredin
place of his father. He was paying land revenue and bona fide
believinghimselftobeownerofpropertyindispute,soldaportion
oflandmeasuring8Kathasand13Dhurstothesecondaccused.
The complainant said that saledeed was forged and the land
belongtocomplainant.Thefirstaccusedsaidthatsaledeedswere
validandcomplainantfiledafalsecomplaintonlytoharasshim.
Thefirstaccusedalsocontendedthatallegationsbycomplainant
evenifacceptedtobetrue,wouldonlygiverisetoacivildispute
anddidnotconstituteanyoffencepunishableundertheCodeor
anyotherlaw.TheCourtconsideredthequestionwhethermaterial
onrecord,primafacieconstituteanyoffence,againsttheaccused.
Inthecontextofabove,theCourtalsotookjudicialcognizanceof
thefactthattherehasbeenagrowingtendencyofcomplainants
28
attemptingtogivethecloakofacriminaloffencetomatterswhich
areessentiallyandpurelycivilinnature,eithertoapplypressure
ontheaccused,oroutofenmitytowardstheaccused,ortosubject
the accused to harassment. Criminal courts should ensure that
proceedings before it are not used for settling scores or to
pressurisepartiestosettlecivildisputes.Simultaneously,itshould
be cautioned that several disputes of a civil nature may also
containingredientsofcriminaloffencesandifso,willhavetobe
tried as criminal offences, even if they also amount to civil
disputes. It placedreliance in makingthiscaution on its earlier
decisioninG.SagarSuriVs.StateofU.P.2000(2)SCC636and
IndianOilCorporationVs.NEPCIndiaLtd.(supra).
45.
TheCourtthenconsideredSections467,471,464andheld
thatsaledeedexecutedbyfirstaccuseddidnotfallinthecategory
of false document. The Court held that there is a fundamental
differencebetweenapersonexecutingasaledeedclaimingthat
propertyconveyedishisproperty,andapersonexecutingasale
deed by impersonating the owner or falsely claiming to be
authorisedorempoweredbythe owner to execute the deedon
owner'sbehalf.Whenapersonexecutesadocument,conveyinga
propertydescribingitashis,therearetwopossibilities.Thefirstis
thathebonafidebelievesthatthepropertyactuallybelongstohim.
Thesecondisthathemaybedishonestlyorfraudulentlyclaiming
ittobehis,eventhoughheknowsthatitisnothisproperty.Itwas
alsoheldthattofallunderfirstcategoryof`falsedocuments',itis
not sufficient that a document has been made or executed
dishonestlyorfraudulently.Thereisafurtherrequirementthatit
should have been made with the intention of causing it to be
believedthatsuchdocumentwasmadeorexecutedby,orbythe
authorityofaperson,bywhomorbywhoseauthorityheknows
29
thatitwasnotmadeorexecuted.Whenadocumentisexecutedby
apersonclaimingapropertywhichisnothis,heisnotclaiming
thatheissomeoneelsenorisheclaimingthatheisauthorisedby
someoneelse.
46.
ThentheCourtfurtherconsideredSection420andobserved
In ParminderKaurVs.StateofUttarPradesh(supra) the
factsofthecasewereverydifferent.TheappellantbeforeSupreme
Courtwasanoldladyofabout74years.Therewasanallegation
thatinacertifiedcopyofrevenuerecordtherewasanalterationin
thedatechangingitfrom6.5.2002to16.5.2002and7.5.2002to
17.5.2002and27.5.2002.Afirstinformationreportwaslodgedby
30
31
thepartofaccused.Merely,changingadocumentdoesnotmakeit
afalsedocument.Asnogainwasshown,theCourtheldthateven
second clause was not attracted. The Court held the entire
proceedingsofprosecutionmalafide,maliciousandvengeanceful
looking into the conduct of complainant, as noticed in para 36
whichreadsasunder:
WearesurprisedattheattitudeoftheStatewhenitisapparent
ontherecordthatthewholeprosecutionismalafide,malicious
and vengeanceful only to settle the scores of respondent no.2
against..
48.
In RashmiJainvs.StateofU.P.andAnr.,2014(1)SCALE
In VesaHoldingsP.Ltd.andOrs.vs.StateofKeralaand
Ors.,2015Cr.L.J.2455(SC) theCourtheldthateverybreachof
contractwouldnotgiverisetoanoffenceofcheatingandonlyin
32
thosecasesbreachofcontractwouldamounttocheatwherethere
wasanydeceptionplayedattheveryinception.Iftheintentionto
cheathasdevelopedlateron,thesamecannotamounttocheating.
In other words, for the purpose of constituting an offence of
cheating,thecomplainantisrequiredtoshowthattheaccusedhad
fraudulentordishonestintentionatthetimeofmakingpromise.
Eveninacasewhereallegationsaremadeinregardtofailureon
the part of accused to keep his promise, in the absence of a
culpable intention at the time of making initial promise being
absent,nooffenceunderSection420IPCcanbesaidtohavebeen
madeout.
51.
NowbeforeexaminingwhetherrequirementsofSection415
and420IPCaresatisfiedinFIR,wemaycrystallizesomeofthe
allegations contained in FIR since there is apparent repetitions.
Theallegationsare:
(i)
Between2011to2012theSocietysecuredtenloansby
furnishingbalancesheets,incomeandexpenditureaccount.
(ii)
Theinformantcametoknowthatforgedbalancesheet,
registeredunderAct,1860.
(vi) The twoare separate, distinct andindependent legal
33
corporatebodiesandtheirassets,liabilitiesandexpensesare
separate.
(vii) Fraudwasplayeduponinformant'sCompanybyfiling
forged and fabricated documents, as a preplanned
conspiracy to cause benefit to the Society and harm the
complainant.
(viii) The office bearers of Society have issued false and
incorrectbalancesheetsandauditreportsdated09.07.2014
whereinUniversityhasbeenshownasownedbySociety.
(ix) TheSocietyhassecuredunwantedhugeloansasalso
enjoyed facility of over draft by showing itself owner of
University.
(x)
TheSocietyhadbeenmaintainingandsubmittingtwo
balancesheets,incomeandexpenditureaccountswhileonly
one balancesheet and incomeexpenditure account is
required for one institute. One balancesheet and income
expenditureaccountinthenameofUniversitywhileanother
isinthenameofSociety.
(xi) Inonebalancesheetlossisshownwhereasinanother
profitisshown.
(xii) It has been done under preplanned conspiracy with
malintentiontodefraudthefinancier.
(xiii) In order to defraud UGC one balancesheet showing
profit has been filed andother balancesheet showing loss
hasnotbeenplacedbeforeitconcealingtruefactsforthe
reason that UGC rejects balancesheet/accounts book
showingloss.
52.
TheallegationsinFIRareveryvague.Admittedly,tenloans
wereobtainedbySocietyintheyear2011and2012i.e.Financial
Year201112and201213.Infact,nineloanagreementsarein
34
TheU.P.Act,2011cameintoforceon07.04.2011,i.e.,when
35
36
54.
ThetimeofinducementisanintegralparttoattractSection
420I.P.C.IntheFIRthereisnotevenawhisperthattherewasa
cheating and dishonest inducement at the time of entering into
loanagreementswhicharedated06.04.2011to29.11.2012.The
FIR is completely silent visvis the time of execution of loan
agreementsandpaymentofloanamountpursuantthereto.Ittalks
of a balancesheet filed on 09.07.2014 but it is not stated
anywhere as to pursuant thereto anypropertywas deliveredby
respondentno.4totheSocietyandaccusedpersonsornot.Infact
balancesheetof2014hasnothingtodowiththeloanagreements
andtheamountofloanadvancedtoSociety.
55.
Whatweactuallyfindfromrecordisthatwhateverwasthe
statusdisclosedearlierintheFinancialYear201112and201213,
remainedthesamefortheFinancialYear201314and201415,
exceptdifference in figuresandamount.Nothing newhas been
doneinthebalancesheetandauditreportdated09.07.2014.The
agreementswereexecutedlongbackandloanamountwasalso
advancedlongback.Infact,fromSeptember2012andonwards
theSocietyhadcommencedcommittingdefaultinrepaymentof
loanamount,resultingincivildisputebetweentheparties.
56.
37
57.
corporatebodyhavingitsownidentitybutthereisnothinginU.P.
Act, 2011 which provides that Society cannot or shall stand
deprivedofmaintainingaconsolidatedaccountorwouldnotshow
the assets, liabilities etc. of University in its own accounts as a
consolidated account. The University would maintain its own
separateaccountsandbalancesheetsbeingaseparatelegalentity,
maybeonething,buttheSocietybeingsponsoringbodycannot
maintainconsolidatedaccounts,isneitherprovidedinanystatute
nor shown to be barred under any provision or statute nor is
showntous.Wearealsonotshownanyrecognizedaccounting
systemwhereunderasponsoredbodyisbarredfrommaintaininga
consolidated account, showing assets, funds, liabilities etc. of
sponsoredbodyinitsownaccount.Theentireassumptiononthe
partofinformantisofhisown.Itwasnotshownthatatthetime
ofinceptionofdeliveryoffundstherewasanydishonestintention
ormensreaonthepartofSociety.
58.
DuringcourseofargumentSriBrijeshSahai,learnedcounsel
appearingforrespondentno.4,thoughsoughttoarguethatallthe
ingredientsofSection415readwithSection420IPCaresatisfied
butexceptrepeatingtheallegationscontainedinFIRhecouldnot
explain as to what was the inaccuracy in accounts, how
consolidated accounts of Society was impermissible in law and
whereisdeception.
59.
statutoryindependentbodycannotbeownedbySociety.Onthis
aspect, Sri G.S. Chaturvedi, learned Senior Advocate for
petitioners, contended that the Society has an element of
ownershipovertheUniversityand,therefore,intheconsolidated
balancesheet it has rightly shown assets etc. of University
38
alongwiththeassetsetc.ofSociety.
60.
SwadeshRanjanSinha(supra)isamatterwhichhasarisen
fromalandlordtenantdisputeundertheprovisionsofWestBengal
Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as Act,
1956). Plaintiff's suit for ejectment of tenant on the ground
specifiedunderSection13ofAct,1956wasdecreedbyTrialCourt
but the judgment was reversed by Appellate Court holding that
plaintiffwas not ownerofpremises, hence, not entitledtoseek
evictionandthiswasupheldbyCalcuttaHighCourtbydismissing
appeal preferred by plaintiffappellant. Before the Apex Court,
plaintiff was the appellant and the question considered was
whether plaintiff is owner of suit premises for the purpose of
institutingasuitforevictionintermsofAct,1956.
62.
BrieffactsasdiscussedinthejudgmentofApexCourtare
thataflatwasallottedtotheplaintiffbytheKadamtolaHousing
CooperativeSociety,Calcutta.ThesaidSocietywasgrantedlease
of16flatsbyCalcuttaMetropolitanDevelopmentAuthorityfora
termof99yearsunderaregistereddocument.TheSocietyinturn
allottedtheseflatstoitsmembers,andplaintiffappellantwasone
ofsuchmember,whowasgivenasubleasebySocietyofatermof
99years.Thesubleasewaswithheritableandtransferabletitle.
The plaintiffappellanttheninductedtherespondenttenantona
rentofRs.110permonth.Plaintiffterminatedtenancyandcalled
39
judgment,readsasunder:
"S.(13).(1)Notwithstandinganythingtothecontraryin
anyotherlaw,noorderordecreefortherecoveryofpossession
ofanypremisesshallbemadebyanyCourtinfavourofthe
landlordagainstatenantexceptononeormoreofthefollowing
grounds,namely:
...................
(ff)Subjecttotheprovisionsofsubsection(3A),where
thepremisesarereasonablyrequiredbythelandlordforhisown
occupationifheistheownerorfortheoccupationofanyperson
forwhosebenefitthepremisesareheldandthelandlordorsuch
person is not in possession of any reasonably suitable
accommodation.
64.
defendant,ifitisrequiredbyhimforhisownoccupationprovided
heisowner.ThedefinitionoflandlordwasgiveninSection2
whichhasbeenquotedinpara6ofjudgmentstating,anyperson
who,forthetimebeing,isentitledtoreceiveorbutforaspecial
contract, would be entitled to receive the rent of any premises,
whether or not on his own account .. The Court held that
definitionshowsiftherentisreceivedbyapersonnotonhisown
accountbutonaccountofanyotherperson,suchashisprincipal
40
orhisward,heisforthepurposeoftheActalandlord.Anysuch
person is, therefore, entitled to institute asuit foreviction. The
CourtthennoticedthatSection13(1)(ff)furtherprovidesthatthe
landlordmustbeownerifherequiredthepremisesforhisown
occupation,orfortheoccupationofanypersonforwhosebenefit
thepremisesareheld.Thecontentionwasthattermownerhas
tobeinterpretedstrictlysoastoexcludeanypersonhavingless
thanfullownershiprights,whileappellantcontendedthatitwas
theleasewithheritableandtransferablerights,and,therefore,for
allpurposes,hewasownerofthepropertyindispute.Itisinthis
contest,theCourtconsideredastowhattermownershipmeans
andinpara8said:
8.Ownershipdenotestherelationbetweenapersonand
anobjectformingthesubjectmatterofhisownership.Itconsists
inacomplexofrights,allofwhicharerightsinrem,beinggood
againstalltheworldandnotmerelyagainstspecificpersons.
(SalmondonJurisprudence,12thed.,Ch.8,p.246et.seq.).
Therearevariousrightsorincidentsofownershipallofwhich
neednotnecessarilybepresentineverycase.Theymayincludea
righttopossess,useandenjoythethingowned;andarightto
consume, destroy or alienate it. Such a right may be
indeterminateindurationandresiduaryincharacter.Aperson
hasarighttopossessthethingwhichheowns,evenwhenheis
notinpossession,butonlyretainsareversionaryinterest,i.e.,a
right to repossess the thing on the termination of a certain
periodoronthehappeningofacertainevent.
65.
TheCourtthensaidthatwhatplaintiffneedstoproveisthat
hehasabetterrightthanthedefendant,hehasnoburdentoshow
thathehasthebestofallpossibletitles.Hisownershipisgood
41
againstalltheworldexcepttrueowner.Therightsofanownerare
seldom absolute,andoften are in many respects controlledand
regulatedbystatute.Thequestion,however,iswhetherhehasa
superiorrightorinterestvisavisthepersonchallengingit.Then
theCourtinpara10saidasunder:
10. The plaintiff is an allottee in terms of the West
BengalCooperativeSocietiesAct,1983:(SeeSections87and
89).Hehasarighttopossessthepremisesforaperiodof99
years as a heritable and transferable property. During that
periodhehasarighttoletoutthepremisesandenjoytherental
incometherefrom,subjecttothestatutorytermsandconditions
of allotment. The certificate of allotment is the conclusive
evidenceofhistitleorinterest.Itistruethathehastoobtain
thewrittenconsentoftheSocietybeforelettingoutthepremises.
But onceletout in accord ance with the terms ofallotment
specifiedinthestatute,heisentitledtoenjoytheincomefrom
theproperty.AlthoughheisalesseeinrelationtotheSociety,
and his rights and interests are subject to the terms and
conditionsofallotment,heistheownerofthepropertyhavinga
superior right in relation to the defendant. As far as the
defendant is concerned, the plaintiff is his landlord and the
owner of the premises for all purposes dealt with under the
provisionsoftheAct.
66.
judgmentofTrialCourtwasrestoredbysettingasidejudgmentsof
AppellateCourt.
67.
42
which are rights in rem and good against all the world. In the
presentcase,theUniversityowesitsexistencetotheSocietyand
ondissolution,theassetsetc.areboundtoagainvestinSociety.
Even for the management purposes, top officers are to be
appointedbytheSociety.Therefore,itcannotbesaidthatelement
ofownershipofSocietyvisavisUniversityisnotinexistence.
68.
43
negativedboththeargumentsandupheldthejudgmentofCourt
below.Order21Rule101whichwasreliedreadasunder:
101. Question to be determined. All questions
(including questions relating to right, title or interest in the
property) arising between the parties to a proceeding on an
applicationunderrule97orrule99ortheirrepresentatives,
and relevant to the adjudication of the application, shall be
determinedbythecourtdealingwiththeapplication,andnotby
a separate suit and for this purpose, the court shall,
notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any
other law for the time being in force, be deemed to have
jurisdictiontodecidesuchquestions.
69.
relatingtoright,titleorinterestinthepropertyintheexecution
proceedings. Looking to the nature of tenants inducted by
judgmentdebtor, the Court looked into the meaning of word
possessionandreferredtoHalsbury'sLawsofEnglandandsaid:
Halsbury'sLawsofEngland,IVthEd.,Vol.35inparagraph
1214 at page 735, the word `possession' is used in various
contexts and phrases, for example, in the phrase actual
possessionortotakepossessionorinterestinpossessionor
estateinpossessionorentitledinpossession.Inparagraph
1211 at page 732, legal possession has been stated that
possessionmaymeanthatpossessionwhichisrecognisedand
protected as such by law. Legal possession is ordinarily
associated with de facto possession; but legal possession may
existwithoutdefactopossession,anddefactopossessionisnot
alwaysregardedaspossessioninlaw.Apersonwho,although
havingnodefactopossession,isdeemedtohavepossessionin
44
Thus,inthecontextofOrder21Rule101,thequestionof
ownershipandlegalpossessionwasconsideredbyCourtandits
meaningwasexplained.
71.
Thestatusofsponsorhasnotbeenexplained.However,itis
notdisputedthatforestablishmentofUniversity,entirefundsare
madeavailablebySociety.TheultimatemanagementofUniversity
is also in the hands of Society, inasmuch as the top officers of
University,i.e.,ChancellorandProChancelloraretobeappointed
by Society. If University wants to dispose of any property the
approvalofSocietyisnecessary.Attheend,i.e.,whenUniversityis
dissolved,entireassets,fundsandliabilitiesofUniversitywould
standvestedintheSociety.ThesefactsshowthatSocietyatleast
has some element of ownership rights over University, legal
possession,andsimultaneouslymaintaininterestintheassetsand
funds of University. If Society maintains assets and liabilities of
Universitybypreparingconsolidatedaccountsandbalancesheet
ofitsown,inabsenceofanystatutorybar,wefindnoapparent
45
faultonthepartofSocietyindoingso.Itcannotbesaidthatmere
preparationofaconsolidatedaccountandbalancesheetbySociety
showingfunds,assetsetc.ofUniversityinitsownaccountsisan
act of fraud on the part of the Society. If the Society has an
element of ownership over University, nothing bars it from
showing funds, assets, liabilities etc. of University in its own
consolidatedaccountsandbalancesheets,particularlywhenthere
isnosuchbarandnonehasbeenshowntous.
73.
NowrevertingbacktotheapplicabilityofSection415and
420IPC,wefindthatbasicingredientthatthedeceptionwasat
thetimeofinception,isabsent.
74.
471IPCareattractedinthiscase.Allthethreeprovisionsarepart
ofsamegenusofoffencesdealtwithundertheheadofForgery.
75.
whichsaysthatifanyonemakesanyfalsedocumentsetc.tocause
damageorinjuryortosupportanyclaimortitleortocauseany
persontopartwithpropertyortoenterintoanyexpressorimplied
contractetc.,hewouldbesaidtohavecommittedforgery.Section
463readsasunder:
463.Forgery. Whoevermakesanyfalsedocumentsorfalse
electronicrecordorpartofadocumentorelectronicrecord,with
intenttocausedamageorinjury,tothepublicortoanyperson,
ortosupportanyclaimortitle,ortocauseanypersontopart
withproperty,ortoenterintoanyexpressorimpliedcontract,
orwithintenttocommitfraudorthatfraudmaybecommitted,
commitsforgery.
76.
documentandSection464IPCprovidesastowhenitcanbesaid
46
thatonehasmadefalsedocument.Itreadsasunder:
464Makingafalsedocument.Apersonissaidtomakea
falsedocumentorfalseelectronicrecord
FirstWhodishonestlyorfraudulently
(a)makes,signs,sealsorexecutesadocumentorpartofa
document;
(b)makesortransmitsanyelectronicrecordorpartof
anyelectronicrecord;
(c) affixes any electronic signature on any electronic
record;
(d)makesanymarkdenotingtheexecutionofadocument
ortheauthenticityoftheelectronicsignature,
with the intention of causing it to be believed that such
documentor partof document, electronic record or electronic
signature was made, signed, sealed, executed, transmitted or
affixedbyorbytheauthorityofapersonbywhomorbywhose
authority he knows that it was not made, signed, sealed,
executedoraffixed;or
Secondly Who, without lawful authority, dishonestly or
fraudulently,bycancellationorotherwise,altersadocumentor
anelectronicrecordinanymaterialpartthereof,afterithas
beenmade,executedoraffixedwith electronicsignatureeither
byhimselforbyanyotherperson,whethersuchpersonbeliving
ordeadatthetimeofsuchalteration;or
ThirdlyWhodishonestlyorfraudulentlycausesanypersonto
sign,seal,executeoralteradocumentoranelectronicrecordor
toaffixhiselectronicsignatureonanyelectronicrecordknowing
that such person by reason of unsoundness of mind or
47
Sections467,468and471IPCcontemplatecertainstagesof
forgeryandreadunder:
467. Forgery of valuable security, will, etc.Whoever
forgesadocumentwhichpurportstobeavaluablesecurityora
will,oranauthoritytoadoptason,orwhichpurportstogive
authority to any person to make or transfer any valuable
security,ortoreceivetheprincipal,interestordividendsthereon,
ortoreceiveordeliveranymoney,movableproperty,orvaluable
security,oranydocumentpurportingtobeanacquittanceor
receiptacknowledgingthepaymentofmoney,oranacquittance
orreceiptforthedeliveryofanymovablepropertyorvaluable
security,shallbepunishedwithimprisonmentforlife,orwith
imprisonmentofeitherdescriptionforatermwhichmayextend
totenyears,andshallalsobeliabletofine.
468. Forgery for purpose of cheating.Whoever commits
forgery,intendingthatthedocumentorelectronicrecordforged
shallbeusedforthepurposeofcheating,shallbepunishedwith
imprisonmentofeitherdescriptionforatermwhichmayextend
tosevenyears,andshallalsobeliabletofine.
471. Using as genuine a forged document or electronic
record.Whoeverfraudulentlyordishonestlyusesasgenuine
anydocumentorelectronicrecordwhichheknowsorhasreason
tobelievetobeaforgeddocumentorelectronicrecord,shallbe
punishedinthesamemannerasifhehadforgedsuchdocument
orelectronicrecord.
78.
OneoftheconditionstoattractSection463isexistenceof
48
falsedocument.Whenafalsedocumentissaidtohavebeenmade,
wegotoSection464.Itisadmittedthatconditionsno.1and3are
not applicable in the case in hand. We go, therefore, to second
conditionwhichprovidesthatifapersonwithoutlawfulauthority,
dishonestly or fraudulently by cancellation or otherwise alters a
documentinanymaterialpartthereof,afterithasbeenexecuted
oraffixedeitherbyhimselforbyanyperson,whethersuchperson
islivingordeadatthetimeofsaidalteration,wouldbesaidto
havemadeafalsedocument.Havingcarefullygonethroughthe
aforesaidclause,wefindthatitisalsonotattractedinthecasein
hand at all. Once the alleged making of false document is not
attracted,therecannotbeanyforgeryandthatbeingso,Sections
467,468and471IPCwouldnotbeattracted.
79.
ToattractSection467IPC,theessentialingredientsarethat
theaccusedhasforgedadocumentandthedocumentmustbeone
ofclassesspecifiedinSection,namely,valuablesecurityorWilletc.
Section 468 would be attracted when there is a forgery of a
documentwithanintentiontousethesameforthepurpose of
cheating. Section 471 would be attracted when someone
fraudulentlyordishonestlyusesadocumentasgenuinedocument,
whichheknowsorhasreasontobelievethatthesameisforged
document.
80.
Inthecaseinhand,wetriedtounderstandastohowthe
accountsandbalancesheetsofSocietycanbesaidtobeforged
when entries contained therein are not claimed to be false or
incorrect but what is charged is that the Society has prepared
consolidated balancesheets by including the assets, income,
expenditure and liabilities of University also, therefore, the
account books, assets and balancesheets are forged. It is not
disputedthatentriescontainedinaccountsandbalancesheetsare
49
50
notbeallowedtocontinue.
83. ThisdecisionhasbeenfollowedinKamleshKumariandOrs.
vs.StateofU.P.andOrs.,2015(6)SCALE77.
84.
WehaveexaminedonlytheallegationscontainedinFIRbut
tounderstandthesamethedocumentsreferredthereinhavebeen
perused. We have not gone into any defence of petitioners and
havinggonethroughallegationscontainedinFIR,weareclearlyof
the opinion that no offences under various sections mentioned
thereinhavebeenmadeout.
85.
WithregardtoexerciseofjurisdictionunderArticle226of
theConstitutionofIndia,expositionoflawiswellsettled.Atthis
stage,theCourtwouldnotgotoexamineevidencewhichmaybe
placed by accused in defence but if we find that from the
allegationscontainedinFIR,offencesstatedthereinarenotmade
outorthatFIRisotherwisewithmalafideintentionortocloaka
civil dispute into criminal one, this Court wouldnot hesitate in
exercisingitsjurisdictionunderArticle226oftheConstitutionby
quashingsuchFIR.
86. SriG.S.Chaturvedi,learnedSeniorAdvocate,atonestagealso
argued that since arbitration proceedings are already pending,
therefore,thecriminalproceedingscouldnothavebeeninitiated
byrespondentno.4.
87.
However,wehavenodoubtinourmindthatmerefactthata
civildisputeithasarisenbetweenparties,wouldnotmeanthat
simultaneouslyitcannotgiverisetoacriminalliability.Bothcan
exist together. Even if there is civil dispute, still, if from the
allegationscontainedincomplaintorFIR,anoffencecanbemade
out,criminalproceedingscangoon.
88. InVesaHoldingsP.Ltd.andOrs.vs.StateofKerala(supra)
theCourtsaidthatagivensetoffactsmaymakeoutacivilwrong
51