High Court quashed orders refusing cognizance, holding that allegation of forged signature in a notarized sale deed attracting IPC sections is sufficient basis for criminal liability, independent of the document's civil validity.
The impugned and trial court orders were set aside, complaint case remanded to trial court for cognizance.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
CRMP No. 46 of 2017
---- Petitioner
Versus
---- Respondents
| For Petitioner | : Shri Nishikant Sinha, Advocate. |
|---|---|
| For Respondents | : None appears even when the case is called out for hearing in the second round. |
Hon'ble Shri Justice Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant
Order On Board
07/09/2017
Heard.
2
3
execution of the forged document, respondent No.4 has taken possession of the shop of the petitioner and similarly has got done mutation in the municipal records in his favour. Hence, prayed that relief be granted.
Hence, for these reasons, it is found that the observation made by the trial Court as well as by the revisional Court below that the document of transfer i.e. notarized sale-deed, is not legally acceptable on account of being a unregistered document, is not a proper reason to have made
4
the basis of rejection of the complaint case. Thus, the impugned order and the order of trial Court are not proper in the eyes of law and the same are liable to be interfered with in exercise of extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
Sd/-
( Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant ) JUDGE
Nisha
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can quash the trial court's refusal to take cognizance where a forged sale deed was executed defrauding the complainant.
Whether the civil illegality of an unregistered notarized document affects the criminal liability under Sections 467 and 468 IPC for forgery.
Whet h er the trial and revisional courts erred in holding the case to be purely civil by rejecting the complaint without taking cognizance.
6 provisions across 2 enactments
Jitendra Kumar Verma
Dadu Prasad Verma
Suresh Verma
Dinesh Verma
Himanshu Kumar Gupta
Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
