Holding

The complaint does not constitute offences under sections 420, 467, 471 and 504 IPC, but may technically satisfy sections 341 and 323 IPC.

Summary

The complainant MD Ibrahim alleged that his land was sold by the first accused to the second accused and that the witness, scribe and stamp vendor colluded to forge the sale deeds, also assaulting him when confronted. The trial court framed charges under IPC sections 420, 467, 471, 504, 323 and 341 and the accused sought discharge, which was denied. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined whether the complaint disclosed the essential ingredients of the alleged offences. It held that execution of a sale deed by a person who is not the owner does not constitute a "false document" under s.464, so forgery under s.467/471 and cheating under s.420 are not made out, nor is the insult provision of s.504 satisfied. However, the complaint may technically show wrongful restraint (s.341) and causing hurt (s.323). Consequently, the charges under 420, 467, 471 and 504 were quashed, while those under 323 and 341 were left untouched.

Issues considered

The complaint's averments whether they disclose the ingredients of an offence under IPC s.420 (cheating).
Whether the execution of sale deeds by a non‑owner amounts to making a false document under s.464, thereby attracting s.467 and s.471 (forgery).
Whether the alleged statements constitute an insult with intent to provoke breach of peace under s.504.
Whether the complaint shows wrongful restraint (s.341) and causing hurt (s.323).
The propriety of using criminal proceedings to settle a civil dispute.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 156(3), s. 482
Indian Contract Act, 1872s. 17
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 323, s. 341, s. 415, s. 417, s. 418, s. 419, s. 420, s. 463, s. 464, s. 467, s. 471, s. 504

Subjects

forgerycheatingfalse documentsection 482 CrPCcivil disputewrongful restraintcausing hurtIndian Penal Code

Judgment

[2009) 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 1254

A MD. IBRAHIM & ORS. ,;,

v. .,
STATE OF BIHAR & ANR.
(Criminal Appeal No.1695 .of 2009)
SEPTEMBER 4, 2009
B
[R.V. RAVEENDRAN AND R. M. LODHA, JJ.]
~

Penal Code, 1860- ss. 420, 467, 471, 504, 323 and 341
- Complaint under - Complainant alleging that the land
c owned by him was sold by one accused to the other accused
- Allegation also against the scribe, witness and stamp
vendor to the sale deeds - Charges framed - Application for
discharge dismissed - Application uls 482 Cr. P. C. dismissed
- On appeal, held: Averments in complaint do not make out
D offence ulss. 420, 467, 471 and 504 - Hence, charges ""\'

thereunder quashed - However, complaint technically shows
ingredients of offences u/ss. 341 and 323 ..o. Therefore,
charges thereunder, not disturbed - Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - s.482.
E Second respondent filed a complaint against
appel,ants 1 to 3 (accused 1 to 3) and two others, before
the Cbief Judicial Magistrate, alleging that first accused
had executed
I
two registered sale deeds in favour of the
secon(t accused in respect of a portion of the land of
F which ~e was the owner. The third, fourth and fifth
accuse were the witness, scribe and stamp vendor to
the sale' deeds and had conspired with accused 1 and 2
to forge the said documents. When he confronted
accused 1 and 2 about the said forgery, they abused and
G hit him.

The Magistrate took cognizance of the offences ulss.
323, 341, 420, 467, 471 and 504 IPC and referred the
complaint for investigation uls. 156(3) Cr.P.C .. On the
1254
H
MD. IBRAHIM & ORS. v. STATE OF 'BIHAR & ANR. 1255

basis thereof, an FIR was registered. A charge-sheet was A
•
filed. The accused applied for discharge. First accused
claimed to be owner of the I; and stated that he bonafide
sold the land. He also stated that the complaint, even if
accepted to be true, would only give rise to a civil dispute
and did not constitute any offence. The Magistrate B
rejected the application for discharge, holding that there
was sufficient material for framing charges. The accused
.... thereafter filed an application uls. 482 Cr.PC. High Court
dismissed the petition. Hence, the prese_nt appeal.

Partly allowing the appeal, the Court c
HELD: 1. Criminal courts should ensure that
proceedings before it are not used for settling scores or
~,
to pressurise parties to settle civil disputes. But at the
·;.. \same time, it should be noted that several disputes of a 0
civil nature may also contain the ingredients of criminal
offences and if so, will have to be tried as criminal
offences, even if they also amount to civil disputes. (Para
7] (1261-D-E]
E
G. Sagar Suri v. State of-U.P. 2000 (2) SCC 636; Indian
Oil Corporation v. NEPC India Ltd. 2006 (6) SCC 736- relied
on

2.1. The condition precedent for an offence ulss. 467
and 471 IPC is forgery. The condition precedent for F
forgery is making a false document (or false electronic
record or part thereof). A person is said to have made a
'false document' as envisaged uls. 464 IPC, if (i} he made
or executed a document claiming to be someone else or
authorized by someone else; or (ii) he altered or tampered G
a document; or (iii) he obtained a document by practicing
deception, or from a person not in control of his senses.
[Paras 9 and 11] [1263-G; 1264-E-F]

2.2. The sale deeds executed by first appellant, clearly
H
1256 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2009] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A and obviously do not fall under the second and third
categories of 'false docu,tnents'. To fall under first •
category of 'false documents', it is not sufficient that a
document has been made or executed dishonestly or
fraudulently. There is a further requirement that it should
B have been made with the intention of causing it to be
believed that such document was made or executed by,
or by the authority of a person, by whom or by whose
authority he knows that it was not made or executed. -.'
When a document is executed by a person claiming a
c property which is not his, he is not claiming that he is
someone else nor is he claiming that he is authorised by
someone else. Therefore, execution of such document
(purporting to convey some property of which he is not
the owner) is not execution of a false document as ,.,...
defined u/s. 464 IPC. If what is executed is not a false
D i'
document, there is no forgery. If there is no forgery, then
neither Section 467 nor Section 471 IPC are attracted.
(Para 12] (1264-G; 1265-C-F]
1-
3.1. To constitute an offence u/s. 420 IPC, there
E should not only be cheating, but as a consequence of
such cheating, the accused should hav~ dishonestly
induced the person deceived (i) to deliver any property
to any person, or (ii) to make, alter or destroy wholly or
1
in part a valuable security (or anything signed or sealed
F and which is capable of being converted into a valuable
security). [Para 13] (1266-B-C]
3.2. It is not the case of the cqmplainant that any of
the accused tried to deceive him either by making a false lF

or misleading ,representation or by any other action or
G omission, nor is it his case that they offered him an,Y
fraudulent or dishonest inducement to deliver any
property or to consent to the retention thereof by any
person or to intentionally induce him to do or omit to do
•
anything which he would not do or omit if he were not
H so deceived. Nor did the complainant allege that the first
MD. IBRAHIM & ORS. v. STATE OF BIHAR & ANR. 1257

.. appellant pretended to be the complainant while A
( executing the sale deeds. Therefore, it cannot be said that
the first accused by the act of executing sale deeds in
favour of the second accused by reason of being the
purchaser, or the third, fourth and fifth accused, by
reason of 'being the witness, scribe and stamp vendor in B
regard to the sale deeds, deceived the complainant in any
.,. manner. As the ingredients of cheating as stated in
Section 415 IPC are not found, it cannot be said that there
was an offence punishable u/ss. 417, 418, 419 or 420 IPC.
[Para 14] [1266-E-H; 1267-A] c
4.1. When the court says that execution of a sale
deed by a person, purporting to convey a property which
is not his, as his property, is not making a false document
and therefore not forgery, it should not be understood as
+ holding that such an act can never be a criminal offence. D
If a person sells a property knowing that it does not
belong to him, and thereby defrauds the person who
purchased the property, the person defrauded, that is the
purchaser, may complain that the vendor committed the
fraudulent act of cheating. But a third party who is not E
the purchaser under the deed may not be able to ma.ke
, such complaint. [Para 15] [1267-8-0]

4.2. To 'defraud' or do something fraudulently is not
by itself made an offence under IPC, but various acts F
when done fraudulently (or fraudulently and dishonestly)
are made offences. By merely alleging or showing that a
person acted fraudulently, it cannot be assumed that he
committed an offence punishable under IPC or any other
law, unless that fraudulent act is specified to be an
offence under IPC or other law. [Para 16] [1268-C]
G

Dr. Vim/a v. Delhi Administration AIR 1963 SC 1572;
State of UP v. Ranjit Singh 1999 (2) SCC 617, referred to

5. The allegations in the complaint do not also make H
1258 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2009] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A out the ingredients of an offence u/s. 504 IPC. Section 504 +
refers to intentional insult witil intent to provoke breach
of peace. The allegation in the complaint is that when he
enquired with accused 1 and 2 about the sale deeds, they
asserted that they will obtain possession of land under
B the sale deeds and he can do whatever he wants. The
statement attributed to accused 1 and 2, cannot be said
to amount to an "insult with intent to provoke breach of
peace". The statement attributed to accused, even if it ~
was true, was merely a statement referring to the
c consequence of execution of the sale deeds by first
appellant in favour of the second appellant.[Para 17]
[1269-D-G]

6. The averments in the complaint if assumed to be
true, do not make out any offence u/ss. 420, 467, 471 and ....
D 504 IPC, but may technically show the ingredients of -+
offences of wrongful restraint u/s. 341 IPC and causing
hurt u/s. 323 IPC. The order of the Magistrate is quashed
insofar as offences u/ss. 420, 467, 471 and 504 IPC.
Consequently, the charges framed under those sections
E are also quashed and the charges in so far as the offence
u/ss. 323 and 341 IPC are left undisturbed. [Paras 18 and
19] [1269-H; 1270-A-C]
...
Case Law Reference:
F 2000 (2) sec 636 relied on Para 7
2oos (6) sec 736 relied on Para 7
1963 SC 1572 referred to Para 15

G 1999 (2) sec 617 referred to Para 15
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. .~
1695 of 2009.

From the Judgment & Order dated 22.5.2007 of the High
H Court of Judicature at Patna in Crimioal Misc. No. 10948 of
MD. IBRAHIM & ORS. v. STATE OF BIHAR & ANR. 1259

.. 2006. A
Gaurav Agrawal for the Appellants.

Gopal Singh, Vimla Sinha and Amit Pawan for the
Respondent.
B
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

R.V. RAVEENDRAN, J. 1. Leave granted. Heard learned
counsel for the parties.

2. Second respondent herein filed a complaint against C
appellants 1 to 3 (accused 1 to 3) and two others before the
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madhµbani, alleging that he was the
owner of Katha No. 715 Khasra No.1971 and 1973
admeasuring 1 bigha, 5 Katha and 18 Dhurs; that the first
+ accused who had no connection with the said I and who had D
no title thereto, had executed two registered sale deeds dated
2.6.2003 in favour of the second accused in respect of a portion
of the said land measuring - 8 Khatas and 13 Dhurs; and that
the third, fourth and fifth accused being respectively the witness,
scribe and stamp vendor in regard to the sale deeds had E
conspired with accused 1 and 2 to forge the said documents;
and that when he confronted accused 1 and 2 about the said
,. forgery, they abused him and "hit him with fists and told him that
he can do what he wanted, but they will get possession of the
land on the basis of the said documents. F

3. The learned Magistrate by order dated 19.7.2003 took
cognizance of the offences under sections 323, 341, 420, 467,
471 and 504 of Indian Penal Code (for short, 'the Code') and
referred the complaint for investigation under section 156(3) of
the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, 'Cr.P.C.'). On the- G
~ basis thereof a First Information Report was registered on
10.10.2003 with Pandaul Police Station. After investigation, a
charge sheet came to be filed on 4.9.2004. The accused
appli.ed for discharge. According to the first accused, the
H
1260 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A complainant and first accused were cousins; that Badri Mian
(paternal grandfather of the complainant) and Mithu Mian / •
(maternal grandfather of first accused) were brothers and that '~
they were the owners of plot nos.1973 and 1971; that the said
plots was inherited by Badri Mian's son (father of complainant)
B and by Muthu Mian's children, one of whom was Girja, mother .
of the first accused; that as per a family arrangement, a portion
of the s~id plots came to the share of Girja and that p9rtion was
in the possession of her husband who got it mutated in ~is -(

name and was paying land revenue; and that after his death,
c the said land came into the possession of her son - the first
accused; that his name was entered in place of his father, and
he was paying land revenue in regard to the said portion of land;
and that he bonafide sold a portion of the land measuring 8
Khatas and 13 Dhurs to the second accused; that the sale
deeds were valid, and that the complainant filed a false .....
D +
complaint only to harass him. The other accused denied any
collusion or complicity in any offence. It was also contended that
the allegations by the complainant even if accepted to be true,
would only give rise to a civil dispute and did not constitute any
offence punishable under the Code or any other law.
E
4. The prosecution opposed the said application
contending that the investigation showed that the plot sold was
a part of land allotted to Badri, grandfather of complainant, and
the first accused did not produce any documents in support of
F his title; and that therefore the Investigating Officer had
submitted a charge-sheet against the accused for the aforesaid
offences relating to preparation of false sale deeds.
5. The learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Madhubani, by
order dated 14.12.2005 rejected the application for discharge
G
holding that there was sufficient material for framing charges.
The accused thereafter filed an application under section 482
Cr.PC before the Patna High Court for quashing the order
dated 14.12.2005. In the meanwhile charges were framed
against the accused. The High Court dismissed the petition
H
MD. IBRAHIM & ORS. v. STATE OF BIHAR & ANR. 1261
[R.V. RAVEENDRAN, J.]

observing that the learned Magistrate had found sufficient A
material showing the complicity of the accused in the crime. The
said order is under challenge in this appeal by special leave.

6. The question that therefore arises for consideration is
whether the material on r~cord prima facie constitutes any
8
offences against the accused. The contention of the appellant
is that if the allegations made in the complaint and FIR, even if
"' accepted to be true in entirety did not disclose the ingredients
of any offence of forgery (sections 467 and 471) or cheating
(section 420) or insult (section 504) or wrongful restraint (section C
341) or causing hurt (section 323) and there was no other
material to show any offence and therefore, their application
ought to have been accepted.

7. This Court has time and again drawn attention to the
+ growing tendency ()f complainants attempting to give the cloak D
of a criminal offence to matters which are essentially and purely
civil in nature, obviously either to apply pressure on the accused,
or out of enmity towards the accused, or to subject the accused
to harassment. Criminal courts should ensure that proceedings
before it are not used for settling scores or to pressurise parties E
to settle civil disputes. But at the same, it should be noted that
several disputes of a civil nature may also contain the
,.. ingredients of criminal offences and if so, will have to be tried
as criminal offences, even if they also amount to civil disputes.
[See: G. Sagar Suri v. State of U.P. [2000 (2) SCC 636] and F
Indian Oil Corporation v. NEPC India Ltd. [2006 (6) SCC 736].
Let us examine the matter keeping the said principles in mind.

Sections 467 and 471 of the Penal Code

8. Let us first consider whether the complaint averments G~
even assuming to be true make out the ingredients of the
• offences punishable either under section 467 or section 471
of Penal Code. Section 467 (in so far as it is relevant to this
case) provides that whoever forges a document which purports
to be a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment H
1262 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A for life or with imprisonment of either description for a term "{

which may extend to ten years and shall also be liable to fine.
Section 471, relevant to our purpose, provides that whoever
fraudulently or dishonestly uses as genuine any document
which he knows or has reason to believe to be a forged
B document, shall be punished in the same manner as if he had
forged such document. Section 4 70 defines a forged document
as a false document made by forgery.

9. The term "forgery" used in these two sections is defined
in section 463. Whoever makes any false documents with
c 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 express or implied contract, O(
with intent to commit fraud or that the fraud may be committed,
commits forgery. Section 464 defining "making a false ""
D document" is extracted below : +

"464. Making a false document.-A person is said to
make a false· document or false electronic record..;._

First.-Who d~shonestly or fraudulently -
E
(a) makes, signs, seals or executes a document or part
of a document;

(b) makes or transmits any electronic record or part of
F any electronic record;

(c) affixes any digital signature on any electronic
record;

(d) makes any mark denoting the execution of a
G document or the authenticity of the digital signature,

with the intention of causing it to be believed that such
document or a part of document, electronic record or
digital signature was made, signed, sealed, executed,
H transmitted or affixed by or by the authority of a person by
MD. IBRAHIM & ORS. v. STATE OF BIHAR & ANR. 1263 1

[R.V. RAVEENDRAN, J.]

whom or by whose authority he knows that it was not A
made, signed, 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
B
has been made, executed or affixed with digital signature
either by himself or by any other person, whether such
person be living or dead at the time of such alternation; or

Thirdly.-Who dishonestly or fraudulently causes any
person to sign, seal, execute or alter a document or an c
electronic record or to affix his digital 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 D
nature of the alteration.
Explanation 1 - A man's signature of his own name may
amount to forgery.

Explanation 2 - The making of a false do~ument in the E
name of a fictitious person, intending it to be believed that
the document was made by a real person, or in the name
r of a deceased person, intending it to be believed that the
document was made by the person in his lifetime, may
amount to forgery. F

[Note: The words 'digital signature' wherever it occurs were
substituted by the words 'electronic signature' by
Amendment Act 10 of 2009)."

The condition precedent for an offence under sections 467 and G
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 H
1264 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A (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.

10. An analysis of section 464 of Penal Code shows that
it divides false documents into three categories:
B
(10.1.) 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
c other person, by whom or by whose authority he knows it was
not made or executed.

(10.2.) The ·second is where a person dishonestly or
fraudulently, by cancellation or otherwise, alters a document.in
D any material part, without lawful authority, after it has been made
or executed by eithe_r himself or any other person.

(10.3.) The thjrd 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)
E unsoundness of mind; or (b) intoxication; or (c) deception
practised upon him, know the contents of the document or the
nature of the alteration.
,
·•
11. In short, aI person is said to have made a 'false
F 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.
G 12. The sale deeds executed by first appellant, clearly and
obviously do not fall under the second and third categories of
'false documents'. It therefore remains to be seen whether the
claim of the complainant that the execution of s·a1e deeds by
the first.accused, who was in no way connected with the land,
H
MD. IBRAHIM & ORS. v. STATE OF BIHAR & ANR. 1265
[R.V. RAVEENDRAN, J.]

amounted to committing forgery of the documents with the A
intention of taking possession of complainant's land (and that
accused 2 to 5 as the purchaser, witness, scribe and stamp
vendor colluded with first accused in execution and registration
of the said sale deeds) would bring the case under the fi.tt
category. There is a fundamental difference between a person B
"'"I' executing a sale deed claiming that the property conveyed is
his property, and a person executing a sale deed ~Y
y
impersonating the owner or falsely claiming to be authorised
or empowered by the owner, to execute the deed on owner's
behalf. When a person executes a document' conveying .a c
property describing it as his, there are two possibilities. The
first is that he bonafide believes that the property actually
belongs to him. The second is that he may be dishonestly or
fraudulently claiming it to be his even though he knows that it
is not his property. But to fall under first category of 'false
D
documents', it is not sufficient that a document has been made
or executed dishonestly or fraudulently. There is a further
requirement that it should have been made with the intenti9n
of causing it to be believed that such document was made or
executed by, or by the authority of a person, by whom or by
whose authority he knows that it was not made or executed. E
When a document is executed by a person claiming a propei:fy
which is not his, he is not claiming that he is someone else nor
is he claiming that he is authorised by someone else.
Therefore, execution of such document (purporting to convey
- some property of which he is not the owner) is not execution of F
1

a false document as defined under section 464 of the Code. If
what is executed is not a false document, there is no forgery.Jf

• there is no forgery, then neither section 467 nor section 471 of
the Code are attracted. -
I

·
G
Section 420 IPC

13. Let us now ~xamine whether the ingredients of an
offence of cheating are made out. The essential ingredients of
the offence of "cheating" are as follows: (i) deception of a
H
1266 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A person either by making a false or misleading representation
or by dishonest concealment or by any other act or omission; I[

(ii) fraudulent or dishonest inducement of that person to either
deliver any property or to consent to the retention thereof by any
person or to intentionally induce that person so deceived to do
>
B or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were (
not so deceived; and (iii) such act or omission causing or is
likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind,
"'!/
reputation or property. To constitute an offence under section
420, there should not only be cheating, but as a consequence
c of such cheating, the accused should have dishonestly induced
the person deceived (i) to deliver any property to any person,
or (ii) to make, alter or destroy wholly or in part a valuable
security (or anything signed or sealed and which is capable of
being converted into a valuable security).
D 14. When a sale deed is executed conveying a property 4-
claiming ownership thereto, it may be possible for the purchaser
under such sale deed, to allege that the vendor has cheated
him by making a false representation of ownership and
fraudulently induced him to part with the sale consideration. But
E in this case the compla.int is not by the purchaser. On the other
hand, the purchaser is made a co-accused. It is not the case
of the complainant that any of the accused tried to deceive him
either by making a false or misleading representation or by any
other action or omission, nor is it his case that they offered him
F any fraudulent or dishonest inducement to deliver any property
or to consent to the retention thereof by any person or to
intentionally induce him to do or omit to do anything which he
would not do or omit if he were not so deceived. Nor did the
.complainant allege that the first appellant pretended to be the
G complainant while executing the sale deeds. Therefore, it
cannot be said that the first accused by the act of executing
.
<

sale deeds in favour of the second accused or the second
accused by reason of being the purchaser, or the third, fourth
and fifth accused, by reason of being the witness, scribe and
· stamp vendor in regard to the sale deeds, deceived the
H
!!!!!!!\
MD. IBRAHIM & ORS. v. STATE OF BIHAR & ANR. 1267
[R.V. RAVEENDRAN, J.]

~
complainant in any manner. As the ingredients of cheating ~s A
stated in section 415 are not found, it cannot be said that there
'
was an offence punishable under sections 417, 418, 419 or 420
of the Code .
•
11111(
--I
A clarification
8
15. When we say that execution of a sale deed by a person,
\
purporting to convey a property which is not his, as his pro~rty,
'
;
I
"' is not making a false document and therefore not forgery, we
~ should not be understood as holding that such -an act can never
be a criminal offence. If a person sells a property knowing that c
( it does not belong to him, and thereby defrauds the personiwho
purchased the property, the person defrauded, that is the
purchaser, may complain that the vendor committed the
fraudulent act of cheating. But a third party who is no' the
+ purchaser under the deed may not be able to make such D
complaint. The term 'fraud' is not defined in the Code. The

- dictionary definition of 'fraud' is "deliberate deception, treachery
or cheating intended to gain advantage". Section 17 of the
Contract Act, 1872 defines 'fraud' with reference to a party to
n
a contract. f Dr. Vim/a v. Delhi Admini~tration -AIR 1963 SC E
1572, this Court explained the meaning of the expression
'defraud' thus

"The expression "defraud" involves two elements, namely,
deceit and injury to the person deceived. Injury is
....
" something other than economic loss that is, deprivati~m of F
property, whether movable or immovable, or of money. and
it will include any harm whatever caused to any person in
In
body, mind, reputation or such others. short, it is a non-
economic or non-pecuniary loss. A benefit or advantage
to the deceiver will almost always cause loss or detriment G
to the deceived. Even in those rare cases where there is
a benefit or advantage to the deceiver, but no
corresponding loss to the deceived, the second condition
is satisfied."
H
1268 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2009] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A The above definition was in essence reiterated in State of UP
v. Ranjit Singh - 1999 (2) SCC 617. . )

16. The Penal Code however defines 'fraudulently', an
adjective form of the word 'fraud', in section 25, as follows : "A f=
>
person is said to do a thing fraudulently if he does that thing f
B
with intent to defraud but not otherwise". The term "fraudulently"
is mostly used with the term "dishonestly" which is defined in J

section 24 as follows : "Whoever does anything with the "
~

'
intention of causing wrongful gain to one person or wrongful loss
c to'defraud'
another person is said to do that thing "dishonestly". To r-
or do something fraudulently is not by itself made an
offence under the Penal Code, but various acts when done
fraudulently (or fraudulently and dishonestly) are made offences.
These include: '

D (i) Fraudulent removal or concealment of property +
(sec.206, 421, 424)
(ii) Fraudulent claim to property to preventseizure (sec. ..{---

207).
l
E (iii) Fraudulent suffering or obtaining a decree (sec. 208
and 210)

(iv) Fraud~lent possession/delivery of counterfeit coin
(sec.239, 240, 242 and 243).
F I

(v) Fraudulent alteration/diminishing weight of coin
(sec. ~46 to 253)
"
.
(vi) Fraudulent acts relating to stamps (sec. 255-261) .
y

G (vii) Fraudulent use of false instruments/weight/measure
(sec.264 to 266)

(viii) Cheating (s_ec. 415 to 420)

(ix) Fraudulent prevention of debt being available to
H
MD. IBRAHIM & ORS. v. STATE OF BIHAR & ANR. 1269
[R.V. RAVEENDRAN, J.]

creditors (sec. 422). A

(x) Fraudulent execution of deed of transfer containing
false statement of consideration (sec. 423). ·

(xi) Forgery making or executing a false document
(sec. 463 to 471 and 474) B

(xii) Fraudulent cancellation/destruction of valuable
security etc. (sec. 477)

(xiii) Fraudulently going through marriage ceremony C
•• (sec.496) .

It follows therefore that by merely alleging or showing that a
person acted fraudulently, it cannot be assumed that he
committed an offence punishable under the Code or any other
law, unless that fraudulent act is specified to be an offence D
under the Code or other law.

Section 504 of Penal Code
'.. 17. The allegations in the complaint do not also made out
I
the ingredients of an offence under section 504 of the Penal .E
Code. Section 504 refers to intentional insult with intent to
provoke breach of peace. The allegation in the complainant is
that when he enquired with accused 1 ana 2 about the sale
deeds, they asserted that they will obtain possession of land
under the sale deeds and he can do whatever I
he wants. The F
statement attributed to appellants 1 and 2, it cannot be said to
amount to an "insult with intent to provoke breach of peace".
The statement attributed to accused, even if it was true, was
merely a statei:nent referring to the consequence of execution
of the sale deeds by first appellant in favour of the second G
appellant. _-

Conclusion

18. The averments in the complaint if assumed to be true,
H
1270 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A do not make out any offence under sections 420, 467, 471 and
504 of the Code, but may technically show the ingredients of
offences of wrongful restraint under section 341 and causing
hurt under section 323 of IPC. ;f

-
8 19. For the reasons stated above, the appeal is allowed
in part. The order of the High Court is set aside. The order
dated 14.12.2005 of the learned Sub-DiVisional Magistrate is
quashed i1tsofar as offences under sections 420, 467, 471 and
504 IPC. Consequently, the charges framed under those
C sections are also quashed. The order dated 14.12.2005 and
the charges in so far as the offence under sections 323 and
341 IPC are left undisturbed. The appeal is allowed in part
accordingly.

K.K.T. Appeal partly allowed.

~c:

;
t

f