S. 464 IPC | Document Can't Be Termed Forged Merely Because It Is Not Traceable In Records Of Public Office : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has observed that a document cannot be termed as 'forged' merely because it is not traceable in the records.

“…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.”, observed a bench of Justices PS Narasimha and Manoj Misra, adding 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.”

As per Section 464 IPC, which defines 'making a false document', a person creates a false document if they, with dishonest or fraudulent intent, create, sign, or alter a document/record to falsely represent that it was made by another person or with their authority.

The case arose from an unsuccessful Joint Venture Agreement (JVA) dated August 16, 2010, between the appellants and Motor General Sales Ltd. for the development of a property in Kanpur. Nearly 11 years later, in March 2021, the complainant lodged an FIR under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, and 471 IPC alleging, among other things, that the appellants had submitted a forged document, a letter from the Executive Magistrate to establish their title over the property.

According to the complainant, the letter was allegedly not traceable in the office of the Executive Magistrate from which it was purported to have been issued, making it a "false document."

Aggrieved by the Allahabad High Court's decision to dismiss their quashing petition, the Appellants appealed to the Supreme Court.

Setting aside the impugned decision, the judgment authored by Justice Misra observed that unless the ingredients of Section 464 IPC are fulfilled, no offence under Section 464 IPC can be made out. Rejecting the complainant's contention, the Court stated that the non-traceability of the document in the records cannot, ipso facto, lead to the conclusion that the document is forged.

“It is a matter of common knowledge that certificate/letters, such as the one in question, are not maintained in perpetuity. Therefore, if, after 10 or 11 years, merely because the office reports that such letter/ certificate is not traceable in the records of the office, it cannot be said that it is forged.”, the court observed.

In light of the aforesaid, the Court allowed the appeal and quashed the pending criminal case against the Appellants.

Headnote

Criminal Procedure – Quashing of FIR – Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, and 471 – Civil Dispute given a criminal cloak – Abuse of process of law – The Supreme Court quashed an FIR lodged 11 years after the execution of a Joint Venture Agreement (JVA), holding that the dispute was essentially of a civil nature - While considering a prayer to quash an FIR, allegations are ordinarily taken at face value to assess if a prima facie cognizable offence is made out - where the cause is essentially civil, the Court must assess whether it has been given a "cloak of criminal offence." - In such cases, the Court is not restricted to the FIR's contents but may consider admitted facts and documents recited therein, such as the JVA - A delay of 11 years in lodging the FIR (JVA dated 2010; FIR lodged 2021) indicates the absence of dishonest intention from the inception. If a stark dishonest intention existed, it would have been reported promptly. [Relied on: Paramjeet Batra v. State of Uttarakhand and others, (2013) 11 SCC 673; Para 15, 25-27]

Cheating – Section 420 IPC – Absence of False Representation – No offence of cheating was made out as there was no false representation in the JVA - The agreement did not contain a specific statement that "no litigation was pending"; rather, it provided an indemnity to the second party for any loss due to disputes - The representation that no "restraint order" existed was not shown to be false. [Paras 20-26]

Criminal Breach of Trust – Section 406 IPC – Non-refundable Security Deposit – The allegation regarding non-refund of security money does not constitute a criminal offence when the JVA stipulates that the deposit is non-refundable and only adjustable against future sale proceeds - Non-fulfillment of such contractual obligations gives rise to a civil cause of action, not a criminal one. [Para 22 - 28]

Forgery – Sections 467, 468, 471 IPC – Document not traceable in records – Merely because a document (such as a Tehsildar's letter) is not traceable in official records 11 years after its purported issuance, it cannot be deemed "forged" or "false" under Section 464 IPC. Official records are not always maintained in perpetuity. [Para 24]

Cause Title: VANDANA JAIN & ORS. VERSUS THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 200

Click Here To Read/Download Order

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) Mr. Pradeep Kant, Sr. Adv. Mr. Divyanshu Sahay, Adv. Ms. Shradha Narayan, Adv. Ms. Nitya Aggarwal, Adv. Mr. Shubham Kumar, Adv. Mr. E.C. Agrawala, AOR

For Respondent(s) Mr. Shaurya Sahay, AOR Mr. Aditya Kumar, Adv. Ms. Shweta Yadav, Adv. Mr. Devvrat, AOR Mr. Devesh Kumar Agnihotri, Adv. Ms. Swati Setia, Adv. Mr. Pabitra Pal Chowdhury, Adv.