Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from a criminal complaint filed by the respondent against the appellant, an author, alleging forgery and cheating in connection with a book titled 'Govinda Sangeet Lila Vilasa' published in 1964. The complainant alleged that the appellant falsely claimed the book was based on an 18th-century manuscript written by King Bhagyachandra, who was illiterate, thereby deceiving the government and the public. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Imphal, took cognizance of the complaint under Sections 465 and 468 read with Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and ordered issuance of a warrant of arrest on 20.12.1990. The appellant unsuccessfully sought quashing of the proceedings before the Gauhati High Court, Imphal Bench, which dismissed his revision petition, leading to the present appeal before the Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. The appellant argued that the proceedings were an abuse of process because the matter was stale, an earlier complaint under Section 500 IPC in 1966 had ended in compromise in 1968, and the present complaint was motivated by jealousy over the Sangeet Natak Akademi Award conferred on the appellant. He also contended that the allegations did not make out forgery because he was not alleged to have made, signed, sealed or executed the false document, and that the evidence relied upon was inadmissible. The respondent argued that a fresh cause of action arose from the appellant's 1989 article 'Theory: the textual tradition' in 'Dances of Manipur; the classical tradition', which reiterated the false claim, and that the representation of writing as that of the Maharaja satisfied Section 464. The Supreme Court rejected the abuse of process argument on staleness, finding a fresh cause of action from the 1989 article. On merits, the Court held that to constitute forgery under Sections 463 and 465, the accused must make, sign, seal or execute a false document; merely representing a writing as another's does not amount to making a false document under Section 464. As the complaint did not allege that the appellant himself created the manuscript, no forgery was made out. Consequently, cheating under Section 420, which was based solely on the forgery allegation, could not stand, and Section 468 also failed. The Court also observed that the evidence was legally inadmissible or unhelpful. It allowed the appeal and quashed the criminal complaint. It directed the appellant to make a public statement that the manuscript was not in the hand of Rajarshi Bhagyachandra and to undertake not to claim so in future, as the claim had hurt the sentiments of the people of Manipur.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Forgery - Making False Document - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 463, 464, 465 - The complaint alleged that the appellant falsely represented a writing as the manuscript of King Bhagyachandra, but it did not allege that the appellant himself made, signed, sealed or executed the false document; the court held that merely passing off a writing as another's does not constitute 'making a false document' under Section 464; therefore forgery under Section 465 was not made out. Held that the complaint did not disclose forgery. (Paras 6-9) B) Criminal Law - Cheating and Forgery - Consequential Offence - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 420, 468 - Since forgery was the principal allegation and cheating under Section 420 was based solely on the alleged forgery, if forgery fails, cheating cannot stand; Section 468 is intimately connected with Sections 420 and 465. Held that the complaint under Sections 420, 465 and 468 was liable to be quashed. (Para 9) C) Criminal Procedure - Quashing of Criminal Proceedings - Abuse of Process - Constitution of India, 1950, Article 136 - The Supreme Court may exercise its power under Article 136 to quash criminal proceedings when no case has been made out and continuance would be an abuse of the process of the court. Held that the appeal was allowed and the complaint quashed. (Paras 1, 11) D) Evidence Law - Admissibility - Admissibility of Deceased Witness Statement and Hearsay - Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Section 33 - The complainant relied on statements of deceased persons and the appellant's earlier statement; the statement Annexure C/1 was inadmissible because the proviso to Section 33 was not satisfied; Annexure C/2 was written hearsay; Annexure C/3 was admissible but did not advance the complaint's case. Held that there was no legally admissible evidence to support the complaint. (Para 10) E) Criminal Law - Abuse of Process - Staleness and Prior Compromise - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 500 - The appellant argued the complaint was stale because an earlier 1966 complaint under Section 500 ended in compromise in 1968; the court found fresh cause of action arose from the appellant's 1989 article repeating the claim, so no abuse on ground of staleness. Held that the court did not accept the abuse of process argument on staleness grounds. (Paras 3-5) F) Judicial Directions - Public Clarification - Apology/Undertaking - Not specific act - The court directed the appellant to make a public statement that the manuscript was not in the hand of Rajarshi Bhagyachandra and to undertake not to claim so in future, as the claim had hurt the feelings of the people of Manipur. Held that the appellant should comply with the direction. (Para 12)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the criminal proceedings alleging forgery and cheating should be quashed for want of essential ingredients of forgery and admissible evidence.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and quashed the criminal complaint. It held that the allegations did not make out forgery under Sections 465/468 IPC because the appellant was not alleged to have made, signed, sealed or executed the false document; consequently, cheating under Section 420 also failed. It also directed the appellant to make a public statement that the manuscript was not in the hand of Rajarshi Bhagyachandra and to undertake not to state so in future.
Law Points
- Forgery requires making of a false document under Section 464
- merely representing a writing as another's does not satisfy
- cheating under Section 420 cannot stand without forgery
- Article 136 can quash proceedings when no offence made out
- Evidence Act Section 33 proviso requires conditions for admissibility
