— 340 [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.
Month: August 2018
Surender Kaushik & Ors Vs State Of U.P & Ors on 14 February, 2013
Hon’ble Apex Court has once for all clarified the position on permissibility of second FIR with this judgment,
From Para 25,
Surender Kaushik & Ors Vs State Of U.P & Ors on 14 February, 2013In the case at hand, the appellants lodged the FIR No. 274 of 2012 against four accused persons alleging that they had prepared fake and fraudulent documents. The second FIR came to be registered on the basis of the direction issued by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate in exercise of power under Section 156(3) of the Code at the instance of another person alleging, inter alia, that he was neither present in the meetings nor had he signed any of the resolutions of the meetings and the accused persons, five in number, including the appellant No. 1 herein, had fabricated documents and filed the same before the competent authority. FIR No. 442 of 2012 (which gave rise to Crime No. 491 of 2012) was registered because of an order passed by the learned Magistrate. Be it noted, the complaint was filed by another member of the Governing Body of the Society and the allegation was that the accused persons, twelve in number, had entered into a conspiracy and prepared forged documents relating to the meetings held on different dates. There was allegation of fabrication of the signatures of the members and filing of forged documents before the Registrar of Societies with the common intention to grab the property/funds of the Society. If the involvement of the number of accused persons and the nature of the allegations are scrutinized, it becomes crystal clear that every FIR has a different spectrum. The allegations made are distinct and separate. It may be regarded as a counter complaint and cannot be stated that an effort has been made to improve the allegations that find place in the first FIR. It is well-nigh impossible to say that the principle of sameness gets attracted. We are inclined to think so, for if the said principle is made applicable to the case at hand and the investigation is scuttled by quashing the FIRs, the complainants in the other two FIRs would be deprived of justice. The appellants have lodged the FIR making the allegations against certain persons, but that does not debar the other aggrieved persons to move the court for direction of registration of an FIR as there have been other accused persons including the complainant in the first FIR involved in the forgery and fabrication of documents and getting benefits from the statutory authority. In the ultimate eventuate, how the trial would commence and be concluded is up to the concerned court. The appellants or any of the other complainants or the accused persons may move the appropriate court for a trial in one court. That is another aspect altogether. But to say that it is a second FIR relating to the same cause of action and the same incident and there is sameness of occurrence and an attempt has been made to improvise the case is not correct. Hence, we conclude and hold that the submission that the FIR lodged by the fourth respondent is a second FIR and is, therefore, liable to be quashed, does not merit acceptance.
State Of J&K and Another vs Abdul Rehman Mir on 4 August, 2016
Another judgment this time from Hon’ble High Court of Jammu & Kashmir, clearly holding that the series of events on the fateful date of 10th July, 2016, are not part of the same transaction because the first occurrence was over when the case was registered on the basis of detailed report as reflected in the first information report. The killing of deceased son of the respondents is a second occurrence hence registration of second FIR regarding this occurrence is permissible.
State Of J&K and Another Vs Abdul Rehman Mir on 4 August, 2016
5 Strategies To Prevent Delays In Court Proceedings
Very good suggestions one can follow to Prevent Delays In Court proceedings. Prepared by Advocate Nithia.
5 STRATEGIES TO PREVENT DELAYS IN COURTSri Rameshwar Yadav Vs The State Of Bihar on 16 March, 2018
This judgment from Hon’ble Apex Court allowed Exemption from Personal Appearance under CrPC 205 to parents and family of Arnesh Kumar.
Sri Rameshwar Yadav Vs The State Of Bihar on 16 March, 2018
Recommended Guidelines to follow when fighting False (Matrimonial) Cases in India
A dear friend and fellow false-case fighter had gladly permitted me to post the following here.
Contact my friend on [email protected], for any questions or regarding the intentionally hidden 10th point.
===============================================================================
Dear Fighters,
Here I am providing some of the Recommended Guidelines to follow when fighting of our Cases. I have prepared these guidelines purely based upon my Experience. Not necessary to be applicable to everyone in our Group. But Its worth Reading Once.
1.Please make sure every court Date is a Productive and Progressive in the global view of all the Cases.
2.Please keep an eye on the Corruption happening regarding any of your cases in the Court and take necessary action immediately. For instance, sometimes your wife will not attend the Court Date but her presence will be marked as Attended which is illegal. So, in this case, you can always Question the court with a Memo.
3.Request the Court for Costing for any Delay Tactics played by the Opponent.
4.Please try to attend all the Court Dates by you or any Nominated person by you. This will help you to monitor all of your cases and build the Rapport with the Court Staff.
5.Apply for Certified copies on the same day for an important Milestone of all Cases. This will avoid any fraud chances (like replacing the Official Papers in the court before we get the Official Certified Copies) playing by the opponent.
6.Please request your Lawyer to let you know before he does anything in the court regarding your cases. Make sure he does the same in front of the Judge as he promised you.
7.If there is any action taken to be from our end in the court, don’t delay. Please file the necessary replies immediately without any Delay.
8.We can understand that most of the Matrimonial Disputes ends in Settlement out of the Court. Please request your Lawyer to not to push you for any out of Court Settlement. This will avoid the Lawyer to Collude with the Opponent and you can sense that in the Initial Stages of the Case if there is anything like that.
9.Avoid Contacting your Opponent in the court by any means. This will shut down the chances of filing the further cases against you by the opponent.
10.
11.Read more judgements given by your Particular judge in his previous Judgements from his previous Courts and prepare the Drafting according to that.
12.As most of the Matrimonial Disputes contains only 15% Legal and the remaining 85% is of the Conspiracy plotted by your Knife, the System and her Lawyers. Make sure you Crack that Conspiracy First by following the Path of Dharma.
13.As we are fighting with Strong Evil forces, we will need Divine help in terms a Mentor or Guru who can save in our Crisis Time. So, Identify a Senior Most Lawyer in your Local Area and make him as a Good friend who can advise in each and every step of your cases. So, our aim is to get the advice from the top most Lawyer and execute the plans with a Lawyer who is Actually fighting your case. Don’t let all of your plans to the actual Lawyer in Advance. As per Chanakya, Secrecy is the Stepping Stone for our Success as part of our Strategy.
14.Sometimes, the Opponent will play the tactics that they would like to Compromise and Cry in front of you when they think that they are Losing the Game. So, please don’t feel proud for this and lose the game by yourself. Please remember that a Ghost will catch your head when it is Winning and the same will catch your leg when it is losing by shedding the Crocodile Tears in front of you. So, don’t trust the opponent unless until they come with the Proper Documentation to Sign the MOU.
15.The Most Important thing is to look after your Mental Health in this long running Trauma of life. So, do Yoga or Mediation or Move Ahead with a Girl Friend or any other areas of your life where you can find your happiness.
Union Of India And Ors Vs Haresh Virumal Milani on 11 June, 2018 (Typo Corrected)
This is a correction order (to remove a typo) in the judgment of perjury case available here.
Union Of India And Ors Vs Haresh Virumal Milani on 26 April, 2018 (Typo Corrected)Vijay Natvarlal Tank Vs State Of Gujarat & on 17 January, 2018
A wonderfully reasoned judgment from Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat held that accused be allowed to seek for documents that prove his innocence, if they were with prosecution/Investigating agencies and not produced in court as part of Charge sheet.
The contention of complainant’s case is quite simple that Section 91 is not applicable in facts and circumstances of the present case and that accused has no right to adduce any evidence until his statement is recorded under Section 313 of the Code.
From Para 9,
It is a settled legal position that neither the investigation agency nor the Court has to complete the investigation and trial respectively only for sake of completing it and against wrong person or without having any substantial evidence against any such persons. In other words, it is settled principle of jurisprudence that the Court has to find out nothing but the truth with reference to any dispute and charges filed before it. It is also settled legal position that pleading generally of the litigation and in particular in Criminal proceedings, where Trial Court’s decision would be disturbed in as much as it would affect the personal freedom of the individual pursuant to his conviction, the accused must be given proper and reasonable opportunity to prove his innocence. It is also well settled that for proving such innocence, accused are certainly entitled to adduce appropriate evidence which may be in their favour to prove them innocence. It is also well settled that for this purpose, the accused may not be denied either the opportunity to produce any information and evidence or to call upon the same, may be with only restriction that it must be in accordance with law and subject to following proper procedure so that other side i.e. victim, complainant, investigating agency and prosecuting agency are having reasonable opportunity to know such evidence and to rebut it if they can. In view of above settled legal position, it becomes clear that disclosure of improper sections in any application and disclosure of some information may not be in requisite form but if such information or material is otherwise relevant to the issue under consideration of the Court, then failing to disclose such information on record or to call for such information and documentary evidence from person where it is lying would result into material irregularity which may ultimately result into illegality and therefore, it is to be avoided. It is also clear that not allowing the accused to prove his case would ultimately result into bright chance of admitting his appeal against conviction and ultimately it may be required to be remanded back. Therefore, to avoid all such situations, one has to look into the rival submissions and law point at this stage only so as to avoid multiplicity of proceedings of either side.
From Para 12,
The respondent is relying upon the decision in the case of Nitya Dharmananda (Supra) but unfortunately applicant wants to read only one line from such judgment which reads that ordinarily the Court produce with the chargesheet for dealing with the issue ofcharge. The reference to the decision in the case of State of Orissa V/s. Debendra Nath Padhi reported in (2005) 1 SCC 568 is not much material for the simple reason that in that case the dispute was with reference to the stage when such documents may be called upon i.e. at the stage of framing of charge or not, whereas even after referring Debednra Nath Padhi (supra) in such recent judgment Hon’ble the Supreme Court has categorically observed and held that the Court being under the obligation to impart justice and to uphold the law, is not debarred from exercising its power, if the interest of justice in a given case so requires, even if the accused may have no right to invoke Section 91 and it is further held that to exercise this power, the Court is to be satisfied that the material available with the investigator, which is not made part of the chargesheet, has crucial bearing on the issue of framing of charge. It is further held that if the Court is satisfied that there is material of sterling quality which has been withheld by the investigator/prosecutor, the Court is not debarred from summoning or relying upon the same even if documents are not a part of the chargesheet. What is considered in all such cases is there may not be mini trial at the stage of framing the charge, but facts would be different after framing of charge and more particularly, when some witnesses are in witness box, it is certainly necessary for the accused to refer certain documents and contradict such witnesses with such documents and pleadings and therefore, such documents are required to be brought on record.
Interesting tidbit:
Vijay Natvarlal Tank Vs State Of Gujarat & on 17 January, 2018Though such evidence is not to be considered at this stage, it would be appropriate to recollect that atleast one of the witness being PW no.7 has admitted that first husband of the complainant, advocate has renounced the world and two other husbands have committed suicide.
Chandra Shashi Vs Anil Kumar Verma on 14 November, 1994
The contemnor in this case has filed a forged Experience certificate in a Transfer Petition filed by his Knife in a matrimonial proceeding. Hon’ble Apex Court has contemplated whether filing of a forged document with intention to defraud the court, amounts to contempt of court. And it held in affirmative.
The husband was given two weeks of imprisonment.
Chandra Shashi Vs Anil Kumar Verma on 14 November, 1994Contempt of Court Judgments
Here is a listing of judgments for the offence of Contempt of Court . See the bare act here Contempt of Courts Act.