Law Maker

Mohammed Ibrahim v. State of Bihar

Supreme Court of India · 4 September 2009 · 2 judges

Executing a sale deed for land the executant claims as his own, though it is not his, is not making a false document under Section 464 IPC, so no forgery under Sections 467 and 471 arises.

Facts

The second respondent complained to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madhubani, that the first accused, who had no title, executed two registered sale deeds of part of the complainant's land in favour of the second accused, with the witness, scribe and stamp vendor conspiring, and that accused 1 and 2 abused and hit him when confronted. Cognizance was taken under Sections 323, 341, 420, 467, 471 and 504 IPC and, after investigation, a charge sheet was filed. The first accused claimed the land through his mother under a family arrangement. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate rejected the accused's application for discharge and charges were framed. The Patna High Court dismissed their petition under Section 482 CrPC, and the accused appealed by special leave.

Questions before the Court

  1. Whether execution of a sale deed by a person conveying property that does not belong to him, as his own, amounts to making a false document and forgery under Sections 464, 467 and 471 IPC.
  2. Whether the complaint disclosed the ingredients of cheating under Section 420 IPC or intentional insult under Section 504 IPC.
  3. Whether the material on record prima facie constituted any offence against the accused.

What the Court held

  • Section 464 IPC covers three kinds of false document: making or executing a document claiming to be, or to be authorised by, someone else; altering or tampering with a document; and obtaining a document by deception or from a person not in control of his senses.
  • A person who executes a sale deed claiming property as his own does not claim to be someone else or to be authorised by someone else. Even if the property is not his, the deed is not a false document, so there is no forgery and Sections 467 and 471 IPC are not attracted.
  • Cheating under Section 420 IPC was not made out because the complainant was not the purchaser and did not allege that he was deceived or induced to part with property. A purchaser defrauded by such a vendor may complain of cheating, but a third party may not be able to.
  • Merely showing that a person acted fraudulently does not establish an offence unless that fraudulent act is specified to be an offence under the Penal Code or another law.
  • The statement that the accused would take possession under the sale deeds was not an insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace under Section 504 IPC.
  • The charges under Sections 420, 467, 471 and 504 IPC were quashed; the charges under Sections 323 and 341 IPC were left undisturbed, and the appeal was allowed in part.

Why it matters

The judgment sets out the three categories of 'false document' under Section 464 IPC and holds that a person selling another's property as his own does not commit forgery. It warns criminal courts against complainants giving the cloak of a criminal offence to purely civil disputes, while noting that civil disputes may still contain the ingredients of criminal offences. It also observes that a third party who is not the purchaser may not be able to complain of cheating by the vendor.

In the Court's words

Copied from the official judgment; each passage links to its page.

“This Court has time and again drawn attention to the growing tendency of complainants attempting to give the cloak of a criminal offence to matters which are essentially and purely civil in nature, obviously either to apply pressure on the accused, or out of enmity towards the accused, or to subject the accused to harassment. Criminal courts should ensure that proceedings before it are not used for settling scores or to pressurise parties to settle civil disputes.”
R.V. RaveendranPage 4 of the judgment
“In short, a person is said to have made a 'false document', if (i) he made or executed a document claiming to be someone else or authorised by someone else; or (ii) he altered or tampered a document; or (iii) he obtained a document by practicing deception, or from a person not in control of his senses.”
R.V. RaveendranPage 8 of the judgment
“When a document is executed by a person claiming a property which is not his, he is not claiming that he is someone else nor is he claiming that he is authorised by someone else. Therefore, execution of such document (purporting to convey some property of which he is not the owner) is not execution of a false document as defined under section 464 of the Code. If what is executed is not a false document, there is no forgery. If there is no forgery, then neither section 467 nor section 471 of the Code are attracted.”
R.V. RaveendranPage 9 of the judgment
“If a person sells a property knowing that it does not belong to him, and thereby defrauds the person who purchased the property, the person defrauded, that is the purchaser, may complain that the vendor committed the fraudulent act of cheating. But a third party who is not the purchaser under the deed may not be able to make such complaint.”
R.V. RaveendranPage 11 of the judgment

Provisions interpreted

Case and bench

Parties
Md. Ibrahim v. State of Bihar
Case
Criminal Appeal No. 1695 of 2009 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 6211 of 2007)
Decided
4 September 2009
Bench
R.V. Raveendran, R.M. Lodha
Opinions
Unanimous. Judgment of the Court delivered by R.V. Raveendran, J., with R.M. Lodha, J. concurring.

Questions on this case

1 question in live Law Maker papers mentions this case. Practise them with the landmark judgments questions.