Learned counsel has referred case of Mohammed Ibrahim And Others v. State of Bihar And Another

471 I.P.C., Police Station - Shikohabad, District- Firozabad, pending before the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-IInd, Firozabad.

3. It is submitted by learned counsel for applicant that applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case and that no prima facie case is made out against him. The applicant has executed sale-deed of his own land by his own name Chandra Prakash Ahuja. The informant Chandra Prakash is a imposter and he is not owner of the disputed property. Informant Chandra Prakash and witnesses have made false statement that property belongs to informant Chandra Prakash s/o Jagdish Lal. Informant Chandra Prakash s/o Jagdish Lal is not residing at his alleged address and this fact is established by the information received under RTI Act. In fact informant Chandra Prakash s/o Jagdish Lal has stated that he was residing in some temple.

4. Learned counsel has referred case of Mohammed Ibrahim And Others Vs. State of Bihar And Another (2009) 8 SCC 751 and submitted that as neither the applicant has impersonated some else nor he has committed any forgery thus, the offence under Section - 467, 471 I.P.C. is not made out. Referring to facts of the matter, it was submitted that no case is made out against applicant.

5. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the application and submitted that owner of the disputed property is informant Chandra Prakash s/o Jagdish Lal and by taking undue advantage of similar name, applicant has executed two sale-deeds of the property of informant by way of impersonation. Informant Chandra Prakash is Yadav by caste. The case of informant is supported by several witnesses, who have stated that property belongs to informant. It was submitted that various questions of facts are involved, which can not be determined in proceedings under Section 528 BNSS and that a prima facie case is made out against applicant.

6. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record.

7. The legal position on the issue of quashing of criminal proceedings is well-settled that the jurisdiction to quash a complaint, FIR or a charge-sheet should be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional cases. However, where the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and material on record even if taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused, the charge-sheet may be quashed in exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. In well celebrated judgement reported in AIR 1992 SC 605 State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal, Supreme Court has carved out certain guidelines, wherein FIR or proceedings may be quashed but cautioned that the power to quash FIR or proceedings should be exercised sparingly and that too in the rarest of rare cases.

8. In case of Mohammed Ibrahim (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court in paragraph no.13 and 14 has held as under :- "13. The condition precedent for an offence under sections 467 and 471 is forgery. The condition precedent for forgery is making a false document (or false electronic record or part thereof). This case does not relate to any false electronic record. Therefore, the question is whether the first accused, in executing and registering the two sale deeds purporting to sell a property (even if it is assumed that it did not belong to him), can be said to have made and executed false documents, in collusion with the other accused. 14. An analysis of section 464 of Penal Code shows that it divides false documents into three categories: 1. The first is where a person dishonestly or fraudulently makes or executes a document with the intention of causing it to be believed that such document was made or executed by some other person, or by the authority of some other person, by whom or by whose authority he knows it was not made or executed. 2. The second is where a person dishonestly or fraudulently, by cancellation or otherwise, alters a document in any material part, without lawful authority, after it has been made or executed by either himself or any other person. 3. The third is where a person dishonestly or fraudulently causes any person to sign, execute or alter a document knowing that such person could not by reason of (a) unsoundness of mind; or (b) intoxication; or (c) deception practised upon him, know the contents of the document or the nature of the alteration. 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"

9. In the instant matter the allegation against applicant Chandra Prakash Ahuja is that he has executed sale-deeds of the property of informant Chandra Prakash s/o Jagdish Lal. In this connection the informant has made clear allegations in the first information report as well as in his statement recorded under - 161 Cr.P.C.. The version of informant is supported by several witnesses examined during investigation. The contention of learned counsel for applicant that in view of law laid down in case of Mohammed Ibrahim (supra), no case under Section - 467, 471 I.P.C. is made out, is not acceptable. From the aforesaid authority it is clear that if someone executes a document dishonestly or fraudulently or by impersonating someone else, then it cannot be said that no offence under Section - 467 I.P.C. is made out. In view of specific facts and circumstances of this case aforesaid case law does not help the applicant. In view of allegations made in the first information report and material collected during investigation, it can not be said that no prima-facie case is made out against applicant. The submissions raised by learned counsel for the applicant call for determination on questions of fact, which may adequately be discerned / adjudicated only by the trial court. Even the submissions made on point of law can also be more appropriately gone into by the trial court. Adjudication of questions of facts and appreciation of evidence or examining the reliability and credibility of the version, does not fall within the arena of jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS.

10. After considering arguments raised by learned counsel for the parties and perusing the impugned first information report and materials on record, no case for quashing of impugned proceedings is made out. The application under Section 528 BNSS lacks merits and thus, liable to be dismissed.

11. Accordingly, the application u/s 528 BNSS is dismissed. Order Date :- 7.7.2025 S Rawat SHOBHIT RAWAT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

471 I.P.C., Police Station - Shikohabad, District- Firozabad, pending before the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-IInd, Firozabad.

3. It is submitted by learned counsel for applicant that applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case and that no prima facie case is made out against him. The applicant has executed sale-deed of his own land by his own name Chandra Prakash Ahuja. The informant Chandra Prakash is a imposter and he is not owner of the disputed property. Informant Chandra Prakash and witnesses have made false statement that property belongs to informant Chandra Prakash s/o Jagdish Lal. Informant Chandra Prakash s/o Jagdish Lal is not residing at his alleged address and this fact is established by the information received under RTI Act. In fact informant Chandra Prakash s/o Jagdish Lal has stated that he was residing in some temple.

4. Learned counsel has referred case of Mohammed Ibrahim And Others Vs. State of Bihar And Another (2009) 8 SCC 751 and submitted that as neither the applicant has impersonated some else nor he has committed any forgery thus, the offence under Section - 467, 471 I.P.C. is not made out. Referring to facts of the matter, it was submitted that no case is made out against applicant.

5. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the application and submitted that owner of the disputed property is informant Chandra Prakash s/o Jagdish Lal and by taking undue advantage of similar name, applicant has executed two sale-deeds of the property of informant by way of impersonation. Informant Chandra Prakash is Yadav by caste. The case of informant is supported by several witnesses, who have stated that property belongs to informant. It was submitted that various questions of facts are involved, which can not be determined in proceedings under Section 528 BNSS and that a prima facie case is made out against applicant.

6. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record.

7. The legal position on the issue of quashing of criminal proceedings is well-settled that the jurisdiction to quash a complaint, FIR or a charge-sheet should be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional cases. However, where the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and material on record even if taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused, the charge-sheet may be quashed in exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. In well celebrated judgement reported in AIR 1992 SC 605 State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal, Supreme Court has carved out certain guidelines, wherein FIR or proceedings may be quashed but cautioned that the power to quash FIR or proceedings should be exercised sparingly and that too in the rarest of rare cases.

8. In case of Mohammed Ibrahim (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court in paragraph no.13 and 14 has held as under :- "13. The condition precedent for an offence under sections 467 and 471 is forgery. The condition precedent for forgery is making a false document (or false electronic record or part thereof). This case does not relate to any false electronic record. Therefore, the question is whether the first accused, in executing and registering the two sale deeds purporting to sell a property (even if it is assumed that it did not belong to him), can be said to have made and executed false documents, in collusion with the other accused. 14. An analysis of section 464 of Penal Code shows that it divides false documents into three categories: 1. The first is where a person dishonestly or fraudulently makes or executes a document with the intention of causing it to be believed that such document was made or executed by some other person, or by the authority of some other person, by whom or by whose authority he knows it was not made or executed. 2. The second is where a person dishonestly or fraudulently, by cancellation or otherwise, alters a document in any material part, without lawful authority, after it has been made or executed by either himself or any other person. 3. The third is where a person dishonestly or fraudulently causes any person to sign, execute or alter a document knowing that such person could not by reason of (a) unsoundness of mind; or (b) intoxication; or (c) deception practised upon him, know the contents of the document or the nature of the alteration. 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"

9. In the instant matter the allegation against applicant Chandra Prakash Ahuja is that he has executed sale-deeds of the property of informant Chandra Prakash s/o Jagdish Lal. In this connection the informant has made clear allegations in the first information report as well as in his statement recorded under - 161 Cr.P.C.. The version of informant is supported by several witnesses examined during investigation. The contention of learned counsel for applicant that in view of law laid down in case of Mohammed Ibrahim (supra), no case under Section - 467, 471 I.P.C. is made out, is not acceptable. From the aforesaid authority it is clear that if someone executes a document dishonestly or fraudulently or by impersonating someone else, then it cannot be said that no offence under Section - 467 I.P.C. is made out. In view of specific facts and circumstances of this case aforesaid case law does not help the applicant. In view of allegations made in the first information report and material collected during investigation, it can not be said that no prima-facie case is made out against applicant. The submissions raised by learned counsel for the applicant call for determination on questions of fact, which may adequately be discerned / adjudicated only by the trial court. Even the submissions made on point of law can also be more appropriately gone into by the trial court. Adjudication of questions of facts and appreciation of evidence or examining the reliability and credibility of the version, does not fall within the arena of jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS.

10. After considering arguments raised by learned counsel for the parties and perusing the impugned first information report and materials on record, no case for quashing of impugned proceedings is made out. The application under Section 528 BNSS lacks merits and thus, liable to be dismissed.

11. Accordingly, the application u/s 528 BNSS is dismissed. Order Date :- 7.7.2025 S Rawat SHOBHIT RAWAT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad