#forgery IPC

The Himachal Pradesh High Court ruled that attesting a mutation based on a sale certificate does not meet the essential ingredients of forgery under Section 464 IPC, as it lacks fraudulent or dishonest intent. The judgment clarifies the distinction between civil wrongs and criminal liability for public servants in revenue administration.

The Punjab & Haryana High Court has held that a co-owner’s unilateral sale of joint property, even without consent, does not amount to cheating under Section 420 or forgery under Sections 467-471 IPC unless there is impersonation, false representation, or fraudulent inducement. This reinforces that such disputes remain civil remedies unless criminal intent is proven, protecting co-owners from misuse of criminal law in property conflicts.

Chhattisgarh High Court refuses to quash criminal proceedings under IPC Sections 419, 420, 463, and 467, holding that disputed facts in a property sale agreement must be adjudicated at trial. The ruling reinforces that Article 226 writ jurisdiction cannot bypass criminal adjudication merely due to overlapping civil disputes.

The Himachal Pradesh High Court ruled that FIRs involving forgery and economic offences under IPC Sections 420, 467, and 471 cannot be quashed under Section 482 CrPC even after a victim-compromise settlement, as these offences undermine public trust in financial and document systems. The decision reinforces that certain crimes are non-compoundable due to their societal impact, not just individual harm.