Intent to Deceive Constitutes Forgery: High Court of Calcutta Dismisses Quashing Petition in Fraudulent Property Inclusion Case

Justice Bibhas Ranjan De emphasizes criminal overtones and affirms charges under Sections 467, 468, 471, 420, 120B of IPC.
The High Court of Calcutta has dismissed a criminal revision application seeking the quashing of a charge sheet related to the alleged fraudulent inclusion of property Dag Numbers in Power of Attorney deeds. In a detailed judgment, Justice Bibhas Ranjan De underscored the significance of the intent to deceive in constituting the offence of forgery, rejecting the appellant’s argument that the matter was purely a civil dispute.
The case arose from a complaint lodged by Ram Chandra Halder, who accused Tapas Mukherjee of fraudulently including additional Dag Numbers in two Power of Attorney deeds. The deeds originally pertained to Dag Nos. 2108, 2109, and 2111 at Mouja Gorjee, Chandannagar, Hooghly. Halder alleged that Mukherjee deceitfully incorporated Dag Nos. 2101, 2103, 2104, 2015, 2016, and 2018 into the documents and attempted to sell these properties. An FIR was filed at Bhadreswar Police Station, leading to charges under Sections 467, 468, 471, 420, and 120B of the IPC.
The court placed significant emphasis on the evidence collected during the investigation, which included the original and allegedly forged Power of Attorney deeds. Justice De highlighted, “The investigation revealed sufficient prima facie evidence of forgery against the petitioner, as evidenced by the inclusion of additional Dag numbers post-execution of the original deeds.”
Central to the court’s reasoning was the intent to deceive, a crucial element in forgery cases. Justice De noted, “The mere act of altering documents with the intent to deceive constitutes forgery under Section 463 of the IPC. It is not necessary for the accused to have made any wrongful gain from the act.”
The court dismissed the appellant’s argument that the dispute was of a civil nature, citing the criminal overtones of the case. “This is not a mere civil dispute; the allegations and evidence point to a deliberate act of forgery intended to deceive,” Justice De observed.
Drawing on precedents, the court referred to the principles established in Haji Iqbal alias Bala through S.P.O.A v. State of Uttar Pradesh & ors. And Paramjeet Batra v. State of Uttarakhand, emphasizing the necessity of considering the overall circumstances and materials collected during the investigation. “The court must look beyond the FIR to the broader context and evidence, which in this case justifies the charges,” Justice De explained.

Justice De remarked, “The intention behind the forgery is clear from the petitioner’s actions and the subsequent evidence. The intent to deceive is the cornerstone of the offence of forgery, which has been sufficiently demonstrated in this case.”
The High Court’s decision to dismiss the revision application reinforces the judicial commitment to addressing crimes involving deceit and forgery. By affirming the charges, the judgment sends a strong message about the importance of intent in criminal proceedings, particularly in cases involving fraudulent documents. The trial in G.R. Case No. 1330/2013 will continue, with the trial court instructed to proceed independently of the observations made in this decision.

Date of Decision: 14th June 2024