Introduction:

In Vandana Jain & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., the Supreme Court of India delivered a significant ruling on the interpretation of forgery under the Indian Penal Code and held that a document cannot be termed forged merely because it is not traceable in official records after several years of its issuance. The Bench comprising Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Manoj Misra examined whether the absence of a document in government records ipso facto establishes that it is a false document within the meaning of Section 464 IPC. The case arose out of a failed Joint Venture Agreement dated August 16 2010 executed between the appellants and Motor General Sales Ltd for development of a property in Kanpur. Nearly eleven years later in March 2021 an FIR was lodged alleging offences under Sections 406 420 467 468 and 471 IPC including the allegation that the appellants had relied upon a forged letter purportedly issued by the Executive Magistrate to establish their title over the property. The complainant claimed that since the letter was not traceable in the records of the Magistrate’s office it must necessarily be a false and forged document. After the Allahabad High Court refused to quash the criminal proceedings the appellants approached the Supreme Court challenging the continuation of prosecution. The judgment authored by Justice Misra revisited the statutory ingredients of Section 464 IPC and clarified the threshold required to constitute forgery.

Arguments:

On behalf of the appellants it was contended that the criminal proceedings were an abuse of the process of law and that the essential ingredients of forgery as defined under Section 464 IPC were completely absent. Senior counsel appearing for the appellants argued that a document can be described as forged only when it is shown that it was dishonestly or fraudulently made to appear as though it was executed by someone else or under authority which in fact did not exist. They submitted that the complainant had not alleged that the appellants fabricated the letter or impersonated any authority or altered any existing record. The sole basis of the allegation was that after more than a decade the office of the Executive Magistrate could not trace a copy of the letter in its archives. This according to the appellants could not automatically transform the document into a forged instrument. It was further argued that government offices are not required to maintain every letter or certificate indefinitely and that administrative records are often weeded out after prescribed retention periods. Therefore non availability of a record after ten or eleven years cannot by itself be treated as proof of fabrication. The appellants emphasized that the dispute stemmed from a commercial arrangement that had failed and that criminal law was being invoked to pressurize them in a property dispute. They submitted that the essential elements of dishonest intention and creation of a false document were missing and hence the High Court erred in allowing the prosecution to continue.

On the other hand the respondents argued that the letter in question was crucial to establishing title over the property and that its absence from official records cast serious doubt on its authenticity. According to the complainant if the issuing authority itself could not trace the document then a strong inference arose that the letter was never issued in the first place. It was submitted that such circumstances justified investigation and trial under Sections 467 468 and 471 IPC which deal with forgery of valuable security forgery for purpose of cheating and using forged document as genuine. The respondents contended that the High Court rightly refused to exercise its inherent powers to quash the FIR since disputed questions of fact were involved. They argued that whether the document was genuine or forged could only be determined after thorough investigation and appreciation of evidence. The State supported the continuation of proceedings and maintained that the allegations disclosed commission of cognizable offences. According to the prosecution at the stage of quashing the Court should not conduct a meticulous examination of evidence but should only see whether prima facie allegations exist.

Judgment:

Allowing the appeal and setting aside the decision of the Allahabad High Court the Supreme Court undertook a detailed analysis of Section 464 IPC which defines the making of a false document. The Court reiterated that forgery is not to be presumed lightly and that criminal liability must be founded upon clear satisfaction of statutory ingredients. Justice Misra writing for the Bench observed that a document would be considered forged only when there are specific allegations that it is a false document within the meaning of Section 464 IPC. The Court explained that under Section 464 a person makes a false document if he dishonestly or fraudulently makes signs seals or executes a document with the intention of causing it to be believed that such document was made by or under the authority of a person who did not in fact make or authorize it or if he alters a document in a material part or causes someone to sign a document without understanding its contents. In the present case the complaint did not allege that the appellants fabricated the letter by impersonating the Executive Magistrate or that they altered any official record. The only allegation was that the letter was not traceable in the records of the office. The Court held that such non traceability cannot ipso facto lead to the conclusion that the document is forged. The Bench observed that it is a matter of common knowledge that certificates and letters issued by authorities are not maintained in perpetuity and that after a decade or more records may be weeded out or misplaced. Therefore merely because after ten or eleven years the office reports that a particular letter is not available in its files it cannot automatically be branded as forged. The Court emphasized that criminal law requires proof of intentional fabrication or falsification and that absence of archival record does not satisfy this requirement. It further noted that unless the foundational facts constituting a false document are pleaded and supported the offences under Sections 467 468 and 471 IPC cannot stand. The Bench cautioned against converting civil disputes into criminal prosecutions without adequate material. In view of the lack of specific allegations fulfilling Section 464 IPC the Court held that continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of process. Accordingly the appeal was allowed and the pending criminal case against the appellants was quashed. The judgment reinforces the principle that suspicion however strong cannot replace statutory requirements and that the mere disappearance or non availability of official records over time cannot be equated with forgery in the absence of evidence of dishonest fabrication.