The mere disappearance of a document from government files does not magically transform it into a forgery. That was the clear message from the Supreme Court of India while examining the contours of Section 464 of the IPC.
A Bench comprising Justices P.S. Narasimha and Manoj Misra underscored a simple but crucial principle: a document cannot be branded “forged” solely because it is no longer traceable in official records years after it was issued. For a document to qualify as forged, the allegations must meet the specific ingredients of Section 464 — namely, that it is a “false document” created or altered with dishonest or fraudulent intent.
Section 464 of the Indian Penal Code defines the making of a false document as an act done with intent to deceive — such as fabricating, signing, or altering a document to make it appear as though it was made by someone else or under lawful authority when it was not. Without these elements, the offence of forgery does not stand.
The dispute before the court stemmed from a Joint Venture Agreement dated August 16, 2010, involving the development of property in Kanpur. Over a decade later, in March 2021, a complaint was filed alleging offences under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC. Among the accusations was the claim that the appellants relied on a forged letter purportedly issued by an Executive Magistrate to establish title over the property.
The complainant’s case hinged on one point: the letter could not be located in the magistrate’s office records and was therefore said to be a “false document.”
The High Court at Allahabad declined to quash the proceedings, prompting an appeal to the apex court.
Setting aside that decision, the Supreme Court held that non-traceability alone cannot satisfy the legal threshold for forgery. The Bench observed that it is common knowledge that certificates and official letters are not preserved indefinitely. The mere inability of an office to locate a document 10 or 11 years after issuance does not automatically render it fabricated.
The court stressed that criminal liability under Section 464 arises only when the statutory ingredients are clearly fulfilled. Suspicion arising from missing records, without more, is insufficient to sustain prosecution for forgery.
With that reasoning, the court allowed the appeal and quashed the criminal case pending against the appellants in Vandana Jain & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (2026 LiveLaw (SC) 200), drawing a firm line between administrative gaps and criminal wrongdoing.
