The Supreme Court has ruled that lawsuits involving fraudulent and falsified documents cannot be dismissed just because the government did not suffer an unlawful loss of revenue [Missu Naseem and Others v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others].
An appeal against a 2011 order of the Andhra Pradesh High Court; heard by a Division Bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and MM Sundresh.
A First Information Report (FIR) filed in connection with a land dispute, stating that; private respondents submitted fictitious and forged house tax books and;tax receipts to the Urban Land Ceiling Department in order to gain access to valuable government land.
The respondents petitioned the Andhra Pradesh High Court to have; the case dismissed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
The High Court granted the motion and cancelled the FIR, stating that; the government has not suffered any unjust income loss as a result of the creation of bogus and falsified documents.
“Even if the petitioners produced forged and fraudulent documents, the government has not suffered any unlawful damage as a result. As a result, this Court believes that registering a crime and; conducting an inquiry are violations of the law, and that the; criminal proceedings should be annulled; “While dismissing the case against private respondents, the High Court made a point.
This resulted in the current appeal to the Supreme Court.
In its decision, the Supreme Court stated that the High Court’s reasoning was completely unsustainable.
“As a result of this argument, document forgery is legal as long as it does not result in income loss! As a result, we have no problem in concluding that; the contested order must be vacated and is thus set aside “While overturning the High Court’s decision, ;the Supreme Court made the following observation.
The Court also believed that; remanding the case to the High Court or resuming the investigation would be; futile given the passage of time since the High Court’s decision, .
The Court emphasized, however, that because; the High Court ruling quashed, the private respondents could not use it as a clean bill of health.
“The civil Court will take its own view respecting inter se conflicts between private parties;on the basis of the evidence before it,” the Court stated.
Importantly, before reaching a conclusion; the Court expressed sadness that the current matter had been pending before the Supreme Court for nearly eight years.
Read more blogs@advocatetanwar.com