Introduction
Forgery represents a grave affront to the judicial system, where the fabrication or alteration of documents can distort the pursuit of truth and undermine the administration of justice. Under the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), Sections 463, 464, and 466 provide a robust framework to address such offences, particularly when they involve court records or documents submitted in legal proceedings. These provisions emphasize not only the act of creating a false document but also the requisite intent—dishonest or fraudulent—to cause harm, support a claim, or commit fraud.
This article explores the statutory contours of forgery, dissecting key ingredients through landmark Supreme Court precedents. It highlights the distinction between mere discrepancies and deliberate deceit, the evidentiary burdens involved, and the safeguards against misuse of these penal provisions. By examining both foundational and recent judgments, the analysis underscores the judiciary’s commitment to balancing stringent enforcement with protections against baseless prosecutions, ensuring that allegations of forgery are substantiated by concrete proof rather than conjectures.
The Statutory Framework: Sections 463, 464, and 466 IPC
The IPC delineates forgery with precision to capture acts that compromise judicial integrity.
Section 463 IPC (Forgery Defined)
This section states: “Whoever makes 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, commits forgery.”
| Key Elements | Description |
|---|---|
| False Document | Creation of a document that is not genuine or has been altered. |
| Intent | Dishonest or fraudulent intent to cause harm, gain advantage, or commit fraud. |
The offence hinges on two elements: the creation of a false document and a specific intent to defraud or injure, which may extend beyond pecuniary loss to include reputational or other harms.
Section 464 IPC (Making a False Document)
Complementing Section 463, this provision outlines scenarios where a person is deemed to make a false document “dishonestly or fraudulently.” It includes:
- (a) making, signing, or executing a document with the intent that it be believed as authentic by an unauthorized party;
- (b) altering a document materially after execution;
- (c) causing execution through deception or incapacity.
The terms “dishonestly” (Section 24 IPC, implying wrongful gain or loss) and “fraudulently” (Section 25 IPC, involving deceit plus injury under Section 44 IPC) are pivotal, requiring proof of mens rea.
Section 466 IPC (Forgery of Record of Court or of Public Register)
As an aggravated form, this punishes forgery of court records, public registers, or official documents with imprisonment up to seven years and a fine. It targets acts that directly impugn judicial processes, such as tampering with exhibits or filings to mislead courts.
These sections operate in tandem: Section 463 defines the offence, Section 464 elaborates on falsity, and Section 466 escalates penalties for judicial contexts. Courts have consistently held that forgery allegations demand evidence of both falsity and intent, lest civil disputes morph into criminal persecutions.
Core Precedents: Distinguishing Intent and Evidentiary Standards
Supreme Court jurisprudence has refined the application of these provisions, emphasizing that forgery is not presumed from anomalies alone but requires demonstrable deceit.
The Vimla Paradigm: Nuances of Dishonest and Fraudulent Intent
In Dr. Vimla v. Delhi Administration (AIR 1963 SC 1572), the Supreme Court acquitted an appellant accused of forging insurance documents, clarifying the intent dichotomy. The Court held that “dishonestly” connotes pecuniary elements, while “fraudulently” encompasses deceit causing non-economic injury, such as to reputation or mind.
The Court observed that fraud involves two elements: “deceit and injury to the person deceived.” It further clarified that injury is not limited to economic loss but includes “any harm whatever caused to any person in body, mind, reputation or such others.” This precedent mandates that intent be inferred from context, not assumed, particularly in proceedings where documents support claims. The Court acquitted Dr. Vimla because while she had committed deceit by signing documents in her daughter’s name, this deceit did not secure her any advantage or cause any non-economic loss to the insurance company.
Evidentiary Imperatives: Indian Bank and Privy Council Insights
Indian Bank v. Satyam Fibres (India) Pvt. Ltd. ((1996) 5 SCC 550) underscores that “forgery and fraud are essentially matters of evidence.” The Court emphasized that fraud must be established through direct evidence or proper inferences from proved facts.
Citing the Privy Council’s ruling in Satish Chandra Chatterji v. Kumar Satish Kantha Roy (AIR 1923 PC 73), the Court reiterated: “Charges of fraud… must be proved by established facts or inferences… Suspicions and surmises… are not permissible substitutes.”
These rulings establish that in judicial filings, variances must be linked to deliberate alterations via cogent evidence, such as expert testimony on handwriting or authorship.
Aggravated Forgery in Judicial Contexts: S.L. Goswami’s Exposition
S.L. Goswami v. High Court of Madhya Pradesh ((1979) 1 SCC 373) describes Section 466 as an “aggravated form of forgery,” applicable strictly to court records or specified documents. The case involved allegations that the appellant had tampered with original court depositions while a paper book was being prepared for a Supreme Court appeal.
The Court emphasized the gravity of tampering with judicial integrity, noting that such offences disrupt the “majesty of law” and warrant rigorous scrutiny. The judgment clarified that Section 466 covers offences “described in section 463 I.P.C. which is committed in relation to a record or proceeding of or in a court.”
Recent Supreme Court Jurisprudence: Evolving Standards of Proof
Contemporary rulings build on these foundations, reinforcing evidentiary thresholds and clarifying liability.
Limits on Liability for Making False Documents: Sheila Sebastian’s Clarification
In Sheila Sebastian v. R. Jawaharaj ((2018) 7 SCC 581), the Supreme Court acquitted respondents in a case involving an allegedly forged power of attorney, holding that Section 464 liability attaches only to the actual maker of the false document. The Court stated: “Section 463 defines forgery while Section 464 substantiates the same by stating when a forged document or electronic record could be said to be made for the purpose to constitute forgery.” The judgment emphasized: “A charge of forgery cannot be imposed on a person who is not the maker of the same.” This strict interpretation prevents extension to intermediaries or users without proof of creation, particularly in property disputes where documents enter judicial records. The Court noted that in the case, it was an imposter who made the false power of attorney, not the accused, and therefore the conviction could not be sustained.
Key Points from Sheila Sebastian
- Liability under Section 464 arises only for the actual maker of the false document.
- Intermediaries or subsequent users cannot be charged without proof of authorship.
- Strict interpretation protects against misuse in property and judicial proceedings.
Evidentiary Rigor for Authorship: The Fakhruddin Standard
In Fakhruddin v. State of Madhya Pradesh (AIR 1967 SC 1326), the Supreme Court established important principles regarding proof of authorship in forgery cases. The Court held: “Where an expert’s opinion is given, the Court must see for itself and with the assistance of the expert come to its own conclusion whether it can safely be held that the two writings are by the same person.” The judgment clarified that while expert testimony on handwriting is valuable opinion evidence, “it can rarely, if ever, take the place of substantive evidence.” The Court emphasized that judges should apply their own observation to compare admitted writings with disputed ones, “not to become an handwriting expert but to verify the premises of the expert.” This precedent has been consistently followed to establish that forgery charges require robust proof of authorship, typically through expert evidence corroborated by other circumstances.
Fakhruddin Principles
| Issue | Supreme Court Position |
|---|---|
| Role of Expert Opinion | Valuable but cannot replace substantive evidence. |
| Judicial Observation | Judges must independently compare writings to verify expert premises. |
| Proof of Authorship | Requires rigorous corroboration beyond expert testimony. |
Procedural Safeguards: Bandekar Brothers on Section 195 CrPC
M/s Bandekar Brothers Pvt. Ltd. v. Prasad Vassudev Keni ((2020) 14 SCC 318) addressed the procedural requirements for taking cognizance of forgery offences related to court proceedings. While the case primarily dealt with Sections 191-192 IPC (giving false evidence), the Court’s observations are relevant to forgery cases as well. The judgment clarified that when documents are produced or given in evidence in court proceedings, the bar under Section 195(1)(b) of CrPC applies, requiring complaints to be made through the court under Section 340 CrPC rather than through private complaints. This safeguard ensures that allegations of forgery in judicial proceedings are scrutinized through proper procedural channels, preventing frivolous private complaints while protecting the integrity of judicial processes.
Key Procedural Rules from Bandekar Brothers
- Forgery related to documents produced in court triggers the Section 195(1)(b) CrPC bar.
- Proceedings must be initiated through the court via Section 340 CrPC.
- Ensures judicial oversight and prevents frivolous or malicious complaints.
Proof of Authorship and Mens Rea: The September 2025 Educational Society Ruling
In a landmark judgment delivered on September 10, 2025, in Jupally Lakshmikantha Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2025 INSC 1096), the Supreme Court quashed proceedings against the head of an educational society accused of using a forged fire safety certificate under Sections 420, 465, 468, and 471 IPC. The bench, led by Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Joymalya Bagchi, held that for forgery and cheating charges to be sustained, there must be proof that:
- (1) the accused made the false document, and
- (2) the false representation was of a material fact that induced the victim to act.
The Court observed: “To attract penal consequences, it must be shown that the false representation was of a material fact which had induced the victim to either part with property or act in a manner which they would not otherwise do but for such false representation.” In this case, the Court found that the fire safety NOC was not even legally required for the building (which was under 15 meters in height), and therefore could not have induced the Education Department’s decision to grant recognition. The judgment emphasized that merely using a suspect document—absent evidence of creation and material inducement—does not sustain charges of forgery or cheating. This ruling fortifies earlier precedents requiring both proof of authorship and proof that the forgery had material impact on judicial or administrative proceedings.
Additional Important Precedents
Mohd. Ibrahim v. State of Bihar ((2009) 8 SCC 751)
The Supreme Court clarified the three conditions under which a person is said to have made a false document:
- (i) making or executing a document claiming to be someone else or authorized by someone else;
- (ii) altering or tampering with a document materially after execution;
- (iii) obtaining a document through deception or from a person not in control of their senses.
The judgment emphasized that “the condition precedent for forgery is making a false document” and that execution of a document by someone who is not the actual owner of property (but does not pretend to be the owner or authorized by them) does not constitute forgery under Section 464.
Mir Nagvi Askari v. Central Bureau of Investigation ((2009) 15 SCC 643)
This case reiterated that a person makes a false document when “the document has been falsified with the intention of causing it to be believed that such document has been made by a person, by whom the person falsifying the document knows that it was not made.”
Sushil Suri v. C.B.I. (2011 (5) SCC 708)
The Supreme Court laid down the basic elements of forgery under Section 463 IPC, emphasizing that there must be:
- (1) making of a false document or part of it,
- (2) with dishonest or fraudulent intention, and
- (3) with one of the intents specified in the section (to cause damage, support a claim, cause someone to part with property, enter into a contract, or commit fraud).
Summary Table: Elements of Forgery Across Key Judgments
| Case | Key Elements Identified |
|---|---|
| Mohd. Ibrahim (2009) | Definition of “making a false document”; three conditions of falsity. |
| Mir Nagvi Askari (2009) | Intention to mislead by making document appear authored by another. |
| Sushil Suri (2011) | Elements: false document + dishonest intention + specific fraudulent purpose. |
| Jupally Lakshmikantha Reddy (2025) | Must prove authorship + material inducement for penal consequence. |
Implications for Judicial Practice and Conclusion
These precedents collectively affirm that forgery under Sections 463-466 IPC demands more than suspicion: it requires proof of falsity, intent, and, crucially, the accused’s role in making the document. From Vimla’s intent distinctions to Jupally Lakshmikantha Reddy ruling’s evidentiary rigor, the Supreme Court has evolved a jurisprudence that protects judicial sanctity while curbing malicious litigation.
In practice, this means prosecutors must adduce direct or circumstantial evidence—such as forensic analysis, expert handwriting testimony, or witness accounts—before courts entertain charges. The mere fact that a document appears suspicious or contains discrepancies is insufficient; there must be cogent proof that:
- (1) the document is false,
- (2) the accused made the false document (not merely used it), and
- (3) the making was done with dishonest or fraudulent intent to cause injury, support a false claim, or commit fraud.
The Jupally Lakshmikantha Reddy judgment adds another critical dimension: even when a document is proven to be forged, charges cannot be sustained if the document was not material to the decision-making process or did not actually induce the alleged victim to act. This principle ensures that forgery prosecutions are reserved for cases where the false document has real impact on judicial or administrative proceedings, rather than being invoked for technical violations where no actual harm or deception occurred.
As digital records proliferate, these principles remain vital, ensuring that forgery probes enhance, rather than erode, trust in justice. Litigants and courts alike must vigilantly apply these standards, fostering an environment where truth prevails over fabrication. The judiciary’s approach—demanding concrete evidence while protecting against frivolous prosecutions—strikes an essential balance between maintaining the integrity of legal proceedings and safeguarding individuals from harassment through misuse of criminal law.
Written By: Inder Chand Jain
Ph no: 8279945021, Email: [email protected]
