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.

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

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 200

Click here to download judgment

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.