The Supreme Court in a judgement delivered recently, observed that a missing document cannot automatically be called fake. A bench of Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Manoj Misra observed that just because a document cannot be found in official records, it does not mean it is forged.

The bench remarked:“…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.”

The Court further added: “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.”

Meaning of Section 464 IPC:

Section 464 IPC defines ‘making a false document’ as: 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.

Background of the Case:

In March 2021, the complainant lodged an FIR under Sections 406, 420, 467 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code.The complaint alleged, among other things, that the appellants had submitted a forged document- a letter said to be from the Executive Magistrate- to prove their ownership of the property.

This issue arose in connection with a Joint Venture Agreement (JVA) dated August 16, 2010, between the appellants and Motor General Sales Ltd., for developing a property in Kanpur.

The complainant claimed that the letter was a ‘false document’ because it was allegedly not traceable in the office of the Executive Magistrate from where it was purported to have been issued.

Appeal Before the Supreme Court:

The appellants then moved the Supreme Court, challenging the Allahabad High Court's decision that had dismissed their petition seeking to quash the case.

Justice Misra’s Clarification:
Justice Misra observed that unless all the requirements(ingredients) of Section 464 of the IPC are satisfied, no offence under Section 464 IPC can be made out. The Court said that just because a document is not traceable in official records, it does not automatically mean that it is forged.

The court explained:

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.”.

Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal and quashed the pending criminal case against the Appellants.

Case details: VANDANA JAIN & ORS. VERSUS THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS.