Criminal Liability for Submitting Forged Documents under Indian Law

Criminal Liability for Submitting Forged Documents under Indian Law

Introduction

The submission of forged documents permeates diverse legal settings in India—commercial transactions, employment, property dealings, judicial proceedings, and public administration. Such conduct not only undermines individual rights but also erodes institutional credibility and economic stability. Indian criminal jurisprudence consequently treats the making and subsequent use of a forged document as grave offences, punishable under Chapters XVII and XVIII of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). This article analyses the doctrinal foundations, procedural dimensions, and contemporary judicial treatment of the offence, drawing extensively upon leading Supreme Court and High Court precedents.

Statutory Framework

Sections 463–471 IPC constitute the core normative regime. While Section 463 defines “forgery,” the operative elements lie in Section 464 (false document), Section 470 (forged document), Section 471 (using as genuine a forged document) and Section 467 (forgery of valuable security, will, etc.). Mens rea is expressed through the adverbs “dishonestly” and “fraudulently,” imported from Section 25 IPC. Procedurally, Section 195(1)(b)(ii) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) restricts cognisance where the alleged forgery pertains to documents produced in court, while Section 340 CrPC prescribes the mechanism for court-initiated prosecution. Evidentiary questions are governed by Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, enabling judicial comparison of disputed writings.

Constituent Elements of the Offence

Making a False Document

The Supreme Court in Mohammed Ibrahim v. State of Bihar[1] distilled Section 464 into three categories: (i) impersonation or unauthorised execution, (ii) material alteration, and (iii) procurement of execution through deception or incapacity. Subsequent rulings such as Md. Ibrahim itself and Aravind v. Dharmaraj[2] reiterate that executing a sale deed for one’s own property, albeit disputable in civil law, is not ipso facto forgery unless accompanied by impersonation or deceit as to authority.

Using the False Document

Section 471 criminalises the use of a forged document “as genuine,” with the accused’s knowledge or reasonable belief of its falsity. The 2023 decision in Deepak Gaba v. State of U.P.[3] emphasised that mere presentation of an inaccurate invoice, absent evidence of falsification or mens rea, fails to satisfy Section 471.

Intent and Public Wrong

In Sushil Suri v. CBI[4] the Court declared that repayment of a defrauded loan does not efface the criminality inherent in forging or manipulating documents to procure it. The decision underscores that offences involving institutional finance transcend private disputes and compromise public confidence.

Procedural Barriers and Facilitators

Section 195/340 CrPC: Court-Produced Documents

A doctrinal schism on whether private prosecution is barred when forgery precedes court submission was resolved in Iqbal Singh Marwah v. Meenakshi Marwah[5]. The Constitution Bench held that the Section 195 bar applies only where the forgery is committed after the document enters judicial custody (in custodia legis). Private complaints remain maintainable for antecedent forgeries. The supervisory power of High Courts to remedy misuse was further illumined in Perumal v. Janaki[6].

Quashing of Proceedings under Section 482 CrPC

R. Kalyani v. Janak C. Mehta[7] clarified that intrinsic factual disputes or the mere civil complexion of a transaction cannot justify quashing where specific allegations of forging or using forged documents are present. The Court reaffirmed the Bhajan Lal categories, cautioning High Courts against premature evaluation of evidence. The policy aversion to quashing in bank-related forgeries was reinforced in CBI v. Jagjit Singh[8].

Evidentiary Issues: Section 73 Evidence Act

Authentication of handwriting or signatures is often pivotal. In State (Delhi Admn.) v. Pali Ram[9] the Supreme Court upheld the trial court’s power to compel specimen writings from the accused, holding that such direction does not offend Article 20(3) of the Constitution. The Court stressed that specimen writings facilitate reliable expert testimony and judicial comparison.

Sector-Specific Manifestations

Property Transactions

Forged sale deeds trigger Sections 467 and 471 IPC, yet jurisprudence draws a line between impersonation and mere assertion of defective title. In Mohammed Ibrahim the impersonation requirement was absent; hence forgery charges were quashed, though lesser offences (Sections 323, 341) survived.

Employment and Service Law

Service-related forgeries invite both penal and departmental consequences. The Delhi High Court in Kiran Thakur v. Resident Commissioner, Bihar Bhavan[10] upheld dismissal for submitting a forged Class-VIII certificate, echoing the Supreme Court’s dictum that materiality of the certificate is irrelevant—the fabrication itself is misconduct. Similarly, Lalta Prasad v. U.P. State Public Service Tribunal[11] mandated observance of natural justice but affirmed that forging age or caste documents constitutes foundational misconduct warranting removal.

Administrative and Revenue Records

High-value urban land scams often involve forged municipal or revenue records, as illustrated by the anticipatory-bail proceedings in Basit Ali v. State of M.P.[12]. Courts treat mutations obtained via forged documents as offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and conspiracy provisions, emphasising both individual and societal harm.

Sentencing and Compounding

While Sections 465 and 471 are compoundable with court permission under Section 320 CrPC, offences under Section 467 are non-compoundable owing to their gravity. Even where restitution occurs, courts have declined to extinguish prosecution, viewing financial frauds as offences against society (Sushil Suri; Jagjit Singh).

Policy Considerations and Reform

  • Deterrence versus Restorative Outcomes: Judicial reluctance to quash proceedings post-restitution signals a deterrent orientation.
  • Digital Documents: The Information Technology Act, 2000 extends the false-document concept to electronic records, rendering the doctrinal framework technologically neutral.
  • Institutional Capacity: Forensic laboratories and handwriting experts require strengthening to ensure timely and reliable opinions, as envisioned by Pali Ram.

Conclusion

Indian courts consistently regard the submission of forged documents as a serious affront to public justice. The statutory architecture of the IPC, interlocking procedural safeguards of the CrPC, and evidentiary facilitation under the Evidence Act collectively create a robust framework for deterrence and punishment. Recent jurisprudence underscores that financial restitution, civil settlements, or administrative expediency cannot eclipse the societal interest in prosecuting forgery. Legal practitioners must therefore appreciate both the substantive elements and the procedural gateways that dictate success or failure of prosecutions relating to forged documents.

Footnotes

  1. Mohammed Ibrahim & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Anr. (2009) 3 SCC 929.
  2. Aravind v. Dharmaraj, Madras HC, 2024.
  3. Deepak Gaba v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2023) SCC OnLine SC.
  4. Sushil Suri v. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr. (2011) 5 SCC 708.
  5. Iqbal Singh Marwah & Anr. v. Meenakshi Marwah & Anr. (2005) 4 SCC 370.
  6. Perumal v. Janaki (2014) 5 SCC 377.
  7. R. Kalyani v. Janak C. Mehta & Ors. (2009) 1 SCC 516.
  8. Central Bureau of Investigation v. Jagjit Singh (2013) 10 SCC 686.
  9. State (Delhi Administration) v. Pali Ram (1979) 2 SCC 158.
  10. Kiran Thakur v. Resident Commissioner, Bihar Bhavan, Delhi HC, 2023.
  11. Lalta Prasad v. U.P. State Public Service Tribunal & Ors., Allahabad HC, 2018.
  12. Basit Ali v. State of Madhya Pradesh, MP HC, 2025.