An Analysis of Section 465 of the Indian Penal Code: Punishment for Forgery

An Analysis of Section 465 of the Indian Penal Code: Punishment for Forgery

Introduction

Section 465 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) prescribes the punishment for the offence of forgery. Standing not in isolation, its interpretation and application are intrinsically linked to the definitions provided in Section 463 (Forgery) and Section 464 (Making a false document) of the IPC. This article endeavors to provide a comprehensive analysis of Section 465, exploring its essential ingredients, the judicial interpretation of key concepts such as mens rea and the act of creating a false document, procedural nuances, and its relationship with other cognate offences. The analysis draws upon landmark judgments and statutory provisions to elucidate the legal framework surrounding the punishment for forgery in India.

Defining Forgery: The Foundation of Section 465

To comprehend Section 465, one must first understand what constitutes 'forgery' and 'making a false document' under the IPC.

Section 463 IPC: Forgery

Section 463 IPC defines forgery as the making of any false document 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. The core elements are (i) the making of a false document (or electronic record) and (ii) a specific intent as stipulated in the section.

Section 464 IPC: Making a False Document

Section 464 IPC elaborates on when a person is said to make a false document. It categorizes the making of a false document into three main types:

  • Firstly, where a person dishonestly or fraudulently makes, signs, seals or executes a document or part of a document, or makes any mark denoting the execution of a document, with the intention of causing it to be believed that such document or part of a document was made, signed, sealed, 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, signed, sealed, executed or affixed.
  • Secondly, where a person, without lawful authority, dishonestly or fraudulently, by cancellation or otherwise, alters a document in any material part thereof, after it has been made or executed either by himself or by any other person, whether such person be living or dead at the time of such alteration.
  • Thirdly, where a person dishonestly or fraudulently causes any person to sign, seal, execute or alter a document, 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 the nature of the alteration.

The terms "dishonestly" (as defined in Section 24 IPC) and "fraudulently" (as defined in Section 25 IPC) are crucial. The Supreme Court in Dr. Vimla v. Delhi Administration (1963 AIR SC 1572) clarified that "fraudulently" under Section 464 IPC requires two elements: deceit and either an advantage to the deceiver or injury (in any form, not necessarily economic) to the deceived. Mere deceit is insufficient; it must be coupled with the intention of securing an advantage or causing injury.

Furthermore, the Supreme Court in Sheila Sebastian v. R. Jawaharaj And Another (2018 SCC 7 581) emphasized that for a conviction for forgery, it must be proven that the accused herself/himself *made* the false document as per Section 464. Merely being a beneficiary of a forged document or being involved in its use is not enough to constitute the offence of forgery against that person.

Section 465 IPC: The Punishment for Forgery

Section 465 of the Indian Penal Code states: "Punishment for forgery.—Whoever commits forgery shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both."

This section is purely punitive. It does not define forgery but prescribes the penalty for the offence of forgery as defined in Section 463 IPC, which in turn relies on the concept of "making a false document" detailed in Section 464 IPC. As observed by the Allahabad High Court in Ram Pal Singh v. State Of U.P And Others (1981 All LJ 600), Sections 465 to 469 of the IPC provide punishments for forgery committed in various circumstances and conditions, with Section 465 being the general punishment. The Supreme Court in S.L Goswami (Dr) v. High Court Of Madhya Pradesh At Jabalpur ((1979) 1 SCC 373) also noted that Section 465 provides punishment for an offence under Section 463.

To sustain a conviction under Section 465 IPC, the prosecution must first establish that forgery, as defined under Section 463 read with Section 464, was committed by the accused (PARESH P JATHAR v. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND, 2023 SCC OnLine Jhar 1745, citing Sheila Sebastian, supra).

Essential Elements and Judicial Interpretation for Conviction under Section 465

Mens Rea: "Dishonestly" or "Fraudulently"

The cornerstone of the offence of forgery is the presence of a guilty mind, i.e., mens rea. Section 464 IPC explicitly requires that the making of a false document must be done "dishonestly" or "fraudulently."

In Dr. Vimla v. Delhi Administration (supra), the Supreme Court held that the expression "fraudulently" involves two elements: deceit and injury. The injury need not be pecuniary and can be to reputation or mind. If no advantage is obtained by the accused or no loss or injury is caused to the other party, the element of "fraudulently" may not be established. This principle was also echoed in older cases like Sanjiv Ratnappa v. Emperor (AIR 1932 Bom 545), cited in Dr. Vimla, which emphasized that fraud requires an advantage to one party and a corresponding loss to another.

The necessity of dishonest or fraudulent intention is paramount. While dealing with the related offence of cheating under Section 420 IPC, which often accompanies forgery charges, the Supreme Court in Ajay Mitra v. State Of M.P And Others ((2003) 3 SCC 11) and Hira Lal Hari Lal Bhagwati v. Cbi, New Delhi ((2003) 5 SCC 257) stressed that a fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of making the promise or representation is essential.

The Act of "Making a False Document"

As established in Sheila Sebastian v. R. Jawaharaj (supra), the prosecution must prove that the accused was directly involved in the *making* of the false document. This was reiterated in Mohammed Ibrahim And Others v. State Of Bihar And Another ((2009) 8 SCC 751), where the Supreme Court analyzed the three categories of false documents under Section 464 IPC. The Court observed that merely executing a sale deed for a property that the seller does not own does not automatically amount to making a false document or forgery, unless the seller impersonates someone else or falsely claims authority from another person. This principle is crucial in distinguishing civil disputes over property from criminal acts of forgery.

The judgment in Devendra And Others v. State Of Uttar Pradesh And Another ((2009) 7 SCC 495) further clarified that a purely civil dispute, such as one over family property shares, cannot be converted into a criminal proceeding for forgery (Sections 467, 468, 469 IPC) or cheating (Section 420 IPC) unless there is clear evidence of deceit, fraudulent intent, or the creation of false documents with malicious intent as defined by the Penal Code.

The Jharkhand High Court in SAMIR KUMAR v. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND (2024 SCC OnLine Jhar 335) summarized the essential ingredients for an offence punishable under Section 465 IPC as: (i) the accused prepared a false document or electronic record, (ii) he did it with a false meaning of retaining the instrument for the purpose of fraud or deceit, (iii) the document or electronic record was prepared dishonestly or fraudulently, and (iv) he did it with the intention of causing wrongful gain to someone by wrongful loss to another.

Nexus with Other Offences

Section 465 IPC is often invoked alongside other sections of the IPC, particularly:

  • Section 420: Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property.
  • Section 467: Forgery of valuable security, will, etc. (an aggravated form).
  • Section 468: Forgery for the purpose of cheating.
  • Section 471: Using as genuine a forged document or electronic record.
The case of Soma Chakravarty v. State Through Cbi ((2007) 5 SCC 403), while dealing with framing of charges generally, underscores that charges, including those for forgery, can be framed if there is sufficient material establishing a prima facie case. In GURDEEP SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR (2024 SCC OnLine P&H 323), the Punjab & Haryana High Court considered whether producing a false affidavit in mutation proceedings would invoke Sections 467, 468, or 471 IPC alongside Section 465.

Procedural Aspects and Bar to Cognizance

Section 195 CrPC

A significant procedural aspect concerning forgery offences, including those punishable under Section 465 IPC, arises when the alleged forged document is produced or given in evidence in any proceeding in any Court. Section 195(1)(b)(ii) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) bars a court from taking cognizance of any offence described in Section 463, or punishable under Section 471, Section 475 or Section 476 of the IPC, when such offence is alleged to have been committed in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in any Court, except on the complaint in writing of that Court, or of some other Court to which that Court is subordinate.

The Supreme Court in S.L Goswami (Dr) v. High Court Of Madhya Pradesh (supra) discussed the old CrPC's Section 195(1)(c) (analogous to the current Section 195(1)(b)(ii)) and noted the distinction between "offences described in Section 463" and "offences punishable under" other sections. It held that an offence under Section 466 (an aggravated form of forgery) is an offence described in Section 463. By extension, an offence punishable under Section 465, being the direct punishment for Section 463, would also fall under this purview. This was affirmed in Ram Pal Singh v. State Of U.P (supra), which stated that an offence under Section 465 is an offence described in Section 463 IPC for the purposes of Section 195(1)(b)(ii) CrPC.

The practical implication is that if a document is alleged to have been forged and is then produced or given in evidence in court, a private complaint for forgery (punishable under Section 465) or for using such a forged document (Section 471) is barred. Only the court in which the document was produced can initiate proceedings by filing a written complaint. This was demonstrated in Thammaneni Dibba Reddy v. State Of Andhra Pradesh (1996 (1) ALT Cri 439), where a conviction under Section 465 IPC was set aside because the cognizance was taken without a complaint from the court where the allegedly forged document was filed. The Supreme Court in S. Dutt Dr v. State Of U.P (AIR 1966 SC 523) also dealt with the interplay of Section 193 IPC (false evidence) and forgery offences (Sections 465/471) with the requirements of Section 195 CrPC.

Quashing of Proceedings (Section 482 CrPC)

Criminal proceedings initiated for an offence under Section 465 IPC can be challenged and sought to be quashed under Section 482 CrPC. Grounds for quashing may include the absence of essential ingredients of forgery, the dispute being purely civil in nature, or an abuse of the process of law. The Supreme Court in R. Kalyani v. Janak C. Mehta And Others ((2009) 1 SCC 516) laid down stringent criteria for quashing FIRs, emphasizing that the power must be exercised sparingly and with caution. However, where allegations, even if taken at face value, do not disclose the commission of an offence, or where the dispute is primarily civil, courts have quashed proceedings (e.g., Devendra And Others v. State Of Uttar Pradesh, supra; Mohammed Ibrahim And Others v. State Of Bihar, supra, where charges under Sections 467 and 471 were quashed).

Aggravated Forms of Forgery and Section 465

While Section 465 IPC provides the general punishment for forgery, the IPC also prescribes more severe punishments for aggravated forms of forgery. These include:

  • Section 466: Forgery of record of Court or of public register, etc.
  • Section 467: Forgery of valuable security, will, etc.
  • Section 468: Forgery for purpose of cheating.
  • Section 469: Forgery for purpose of harming reputation.
As noted in S.L Goswami (Dr) (supra), Section 466 is an aggravated form of forgery. The existence of these specific sections implies that when the forgery pertains to particular types of documents or is committed with specific ulterior motives as detailed therein, the punishment will be governed by those sections rather than the general provision of Section 465. However, the foundational elements of forgery as defined in Section 463 and the making of a false document under Section 464 remain common prerequisites.

Conclusion

Section 465 of the Indian Penal Code serves as the punitive provision for the offence of forgery. Its application is contingent upon establishing the commission of "forgery" as defined in Section 463, which in turn requires proving the "making of a false document" under Section 464. Judicial pronouncements have consistently emphasized the necessity of proving mens rea – a dishonest or fraudulent intention – and the actual act of creating or altering the document by the accused. The distinction between civil wrongs and criminal forgery, particularly in property disputes, is a critical area of adjudication.

Procedural safeguards, notably the bar to cognizance under Section 195 CrPC when forged documents are used in court proceedings, play a vital role in regulating prosecutions for forgery. While Section 465 provides a general punishment, the IPC also addresses aggravated forms of forgery with more stringent penalties. A thorough understanding of these interconnected provisions and their interpretation by the judiciary is essential for legal practitioners and scholars navigating the complexities of forgery law in India.