THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY Crl.P.No.6149 of 2008 ORAL ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.94 of 2008 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Pathapatnam, Srikakulam district, registered for offences punishable under Sections 420, 417, 468 and 177 I.P.C. The petitioners are A1 and A2 and the first respondent is the defacto-complainant in the calendar case. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter referred to as arrayed in the calendar case. Before going into the merits of the case, it is necessary to note briefly the facts of the prosecution case. A2 is the father of A1 and both are residents of Visalakshi Nagar, Visakhapatnam; A1 executed registered sale deed dated 13.4.2007 for a consideration of Rs.11,43,500/- in favour of A2 in respect of Ac.27.60 cents of land claiming that she is the power of attorney holder of the owners of the property (17) in number who were alive, but out of the 17 persons, five persons namely, Bodepu Jogi Naidu, Agatamudi Peda Tellayya, Gara Ugadi, Anisetti Karriyya, Bodepu Ratnalamma died by then. Thus, having knowledge about the death of those five persons, A1 gave such false declaration before the registration officials and cheated them. Further, previously out of 17 members, some members registered the land in favour of the father of defacto complainant and having knowledge about the same, A1 and A2 intentionally caused wrongful loss to the defacto complainant by giving false declaration. It is the contention of learned counsel for A1 and A2 that by virtue of Section 195 Cr.P.C., if the document was executed by A1 in favour of A2 suppressing the factum of the death of five out of 17 persons who are said to have given power of attorney to her, the concerned public authority should make a complaint in writing to take necessary action in respect of the offences covered thereunder including Section 177 I.P.C, but such step was not taken by such public authority and therefore Section 177 I.P.C. is not applicable here. Further, as per the prosecution, A1 executed document in favour of A2 and there is no complaint from A2 to the effect that A1 cheated him and therefore there is no basis to say that A1 involved in that offence. Further, unless any L.Rs. of those five persons gave a report making the allegations of creating a false document with a dishonest intention and thereby they incurred loss of their property, no court can take cognizance of the complaint. In support of his contention, the learned counsel has relied upon the decision in DAULAT RAM v. STATE OF PUNJAB[1]. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the petition and submitted that the ingredients of said Sections are satisfied here. By virtue of Section 195 Cr.P.C. if in fact A1 suppressed any factum of the death of five out of 17 persons who according to her, gave power of attorney to her, before a public authority, such authority has to file in writing a complaint before the competent Court of law for taking necessary action. In DAULAT RAM’s case (1 supra), the Supreme Court held that the words of Section 195 Cr.P.C., namely that the complaint has to be in writing by the public servant concerned and that no court shall take cognizance except on such a complaint clearly show that in every instance the court must be moved by the appropriate public servant. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the same proposition is applicable here. Consequently, Section 177 I.P.C. is to be deleted here. Further, the offence punishable under Section 420 IPC is concerned, A2 has not come forward claiming that A1 cheated him and unless he comes forward making certain allegations against her, it cannot be said that ingredients of Section 420 IPC are satisfied so far as A2 is concerned. Insofar as the offences punishable under Section 463, 464 and 468 are concerned, Section 463 reads “Forgery 1 [Whoever makes any false documents or false electronic record or part of a document or electronic record with intent to cause damage or injury], to the public or to any person, or to support any claim or title, or to cause any person to part with property, or to enter into any express or implied contract, or with intent to commit fraud or that fraud may be committed, commits forgery.” Section 464 reads “Making a false document 1 [A person is said to make a false document or electronic record-- First.--Who dishonestly or fraudulently-- (a) makes, signs, seals or executes a document or part of a document; (b) makes or transmits any electronic record or part of any electronic record; (c) affixes any 3[electronic signature] on any electronic record; (d) makes any mark denoting the execution of a document or the authenticity of the 3[electronic signature], with the intention of causing it to be believed that such document or pan of document, electronic record or 3[electronic signature] was made, signed, scaled executed, transmitted or affixed by or by the authority of a person by whom or by whose authority he knows that it was not made, singed, sealed, executed or affixed; or Secondly.--Who without lawful authority, dishonestly or fraudulently, by cancellation or otherwise, alters a document or an electronic record in any material part thereof, after it has been made, executed or affixed with 3[electronic signature] either by himself or by any other person, whether such person be living or dead at the time of such alteration; or Thirdly.--Who dishonestly or fraudulently causes any person to sign, seal, execute or alter a document or an electronic record or to affix his 3[electronic signature] on any electronic record knowing that such person by reason of unsoundness of mind or intoxication cannot, or that by reason of deception practised upon him, he does not know the contents of the document or electronic record or the nature of the alteration.]” Section 468 reads “Forgery for purpose of cheating Whoever commits forgery, intending that the1[document or electronic record forged] shall be used for the purpose of cheating, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.” If A1 created a false document with the dishonest intention of cheating her father or the legal heirs of the deceased five persons in question and/or the defacto complainant, these provisions are applicable here. If either her father or the legal heirs of those five persons have taken necessary action in that context, certainly A1 is liable to be prosecuted accordingly. Further, if the property was sold already in favour of the defacto complainant and later the property was sold to A2, which therefore is a false sale and coupled with that if that sale was done with dishonest intention then A1 and A2 are liable to be prosecuted for the offence punishable under Section 468 IPC on the ground of making use of that false sale. But no document is filed in spite of giving sufficient time to show that earlier the defacto complainant purchased the property from the actual owners of the property. Therefore, there is no basis prima facie to say that the accused involved in that offence also. Further, if the property was sold after the death of five of 17 owners of it, the sale so far as those persons are concerned is not valid because the power of attorney dies with the death of those five persons to the extent of them. The impugned proceedings against them are liable to be quashed ultimately. For the foregoing reasons, the criminal petition is allowed and the impugned proceedings are quashed. ________________________ G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J Date: 27.9.2011 DA/DSH THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY Crl.A.No.1547 of 2007 .10.2011 [1] AIR 1962 SC 1206