Umed Singh vs Vijendra Singh

B.D. Rathi, J.—With the consent of parties matter is finally heard. This revision petition has been preferred being aggrieved from the order dated 24-06-2008 passed from the Court Special Judge (Prevention of Atrocities Act) in Criminal Revision No. 05/2008 whereby the order of trial Court dated 16-01-2008 passed in Private Criminal Case No. 34/2008 from the Court of CJM Sheopur has been set aside.

It was ordered by CJM that case be registered for the offence punishable u/s 468 of Indian Penal Code (in short IPC) against respondents No. 1 and 2. When this order was quashed by the impugned order by revisional Court, this revision petition has been filed by the petitioner-Umed Singh/complainant.

It is held by the revisional Court that the false document death certificate of one Mr. Sundara was not prepared by the respondents. It was also held that respondents have simply gave wrong information in regard to date of death of Sundara to the public servant for issuing the death certificate and therefore no case is made out for the offence punishable u/s 468 of IPC. They have only committed the offence u/s 182 of IPC and as per the provisions of Section 195(1)(a)(i) of The Code of Criminal Procedure (in short the Code) no Court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable u/s 172 to 188 both inclusive of the IPC except in complaint of writing of that Court by such officer of the Court as that Court may authorize in writing in this behalf or of some other Court to which that Court is subordinate and because in this case no such complaint was made, therefore, respondents also cannot be charged u/s 182 of IPC.

It was argued by Shri Lahoti on behalf of petitioner that learned revisional Court has not properly appreciated the provisions of Sections 463 and 468 of IPC. The impugned order is perverse and illegal and liable to be quashed. It was also submitted that there is sufficient material and evidence available on record to frame the charges u/s 468 of IPC.

On the contrary, it was argued on behalf of respondents No. 1 and 2 that impugned order was well merited and no interference is called for.

Having regard to the arguments advanced by the parties impugned order and record of private complaint case barely perused, it was alleged in para 6 of private complaint that to obtain false death certificate of Sundara format No. 4 was filled up by mentioning the wrong date of death i.e. 07-09-1998 and submitted in the office of Nagar Palika Sheopur and obtained a false death certificate on 24-09-1998. Admittedly, it was not pleaded in complaint that death certificate was falsely prepared by respondents No. 1 and 2.

Definition of forgery has been given u/s 463 of IPC and as per that provision:

Whoever makes any false documents or false electronic record or part of a document or electronic record, with intent to cause damage or injury to the public or to any person, or to support any claim or title, or to cause any person to part with property, or to enter into any express or implied contract, or with intent to commit fraud or that fraud may be committed commits forgery.

Making a false document has been defined u/s 464 of IPC:

A person is said to make a false document or false electronic record-First -Who dishonestly or fraudulently-

(a) makes, signs, seals or executes a document or part of a document

And whoever commits forgery as mentioned above intending that the documents are electronic record forged shall be used for the purpose of cheating, shall be punished with the imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to 7 years and shall also be liable to fine u/s 468 of IPC.

It is an admitted fact that false document death certificate was not prepared by respondents No. 1 and 2. They have simply filed wrong information in regard to date of death of Sundara as alleged in complaint but neither oral nor any documentary evidence has been produced by the complainant to prove that format No. 4 having wrong information about the date of death, was filed by respondents No. 1 and 2 and also it was not proved by extending any kind of evidence before the trial Court that format No. 4 was filled up by respondents No. 1 and 2 only, therefore, any ground for registering the case for the abetment of offence u/s 468 of IPC is also not available.

It was rightly held by the revisional Court that this complaint case is not maintainable because prima facie for the offence u/s 182 of IPC complaint was not made as per the provisions of Section 195 of the Code.

In the aforesaid premises, in the opinion of this Court the impugned order was rightly passed as there is no perversity or illegality in the impugned order. The revision is devoid of merits and is dismissed accordingly. Copy of this order be sent to the Courts below along with record.