False and fabricated documents cannot be squashed even if do not result in an unjustified loss of revenue to the government: Supreme Court
Lawsuits relating to false and fabricated documents cannot be squashed even if it did not bring about any unjustified or wrongful loss to the revenue of the government is upheld by the Supreme Court of India through a division bench led by HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MM SUNDRESH in the case of Missu Naseem and Another v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others (CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 161 /2022).
Brief facts of the case are that an FIR has been registered in respect of a land issue alleging that the private respondents had submitted fake and fabricated house tax book and tax receipts to the Urban Land Ceiling Department to grab valuable government land.The respondents moved the Andhra Pradesh High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the case.The Karnataka High Court allowed the plea and quashed the FIR, observing that the production of fake and fabricated documents has not caused any wrongful loss of revenue to the government.Aggrieved by the order, the petitioners appealed in the Supreme Court.
The petitioners contended that they were aggrieved by the decision because it was sought after in civil litigation to serve as a sort of clean information for private defendants. The second aspect is not permissible and therefore the present order is not sustainable.The respondents contended that they support the FIR although they do not “seem to be perturbed by the order”
The apex court held that cases regarding forged and fabricated documents cannot be dismissed simply because they do not result in an unjustified loss of revenue to the government. The result of this reasoning is that documents are allowed to be produced if it does not result in loss of revenue. Therefore, we have no hesitation in concluding that the disputed decision should be repealed and therefore annulled. The Civil Court will take its opinion, based on previous evidence, on disputes between private individuals.
Click here to read the judgement
Judgement reviewed by – Bhaswati Goldar