PRIYANKA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal miscellaneous petition is preferred against the cognizance order dtd. 7/2/2020 passed under Sec. 465 IPC against the petitioner on the Final Report submitted by the concerned police station.

(2.) The record of FR indicates that the concerned Investigating Officer did not verify the authenticity of the alleged medical certificates. He simply reported that the alleged certificates were obtained by father of the accused petitioner and he died during the investigation.

(3.) Learned trial court without exploring the authenticity of the questioned documents inferred that the alleged documents were forged and took cognizance against the petitioner under Sec. 465 IPC. The record did not show that the documents purported to be forged were genuine or forged. It was the duty of the Investigating Officer to get the alleged documents ascertained by the concerned Hospitals. The record (case diary) reveals that the Investigating Officer did not investigate any official of the concerned Hospitals to verify the authenticity of the alleged medical certificates. The Investigating Officer ought to have conducted the proper and essential investigation before arriving at any conclusion about the genuineness of the medical certificates. Forgery is defined under Sec. 463 IPC, which contemplates that:- "Whoever makes any false documents 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."