Whether the mere non-traceability of a document in the records of the office can render it a fabricated or forged document?

No. Merely because a document is not traceable in the records after several years of its issuance it cannot be said that the document is forged; a document is a forged document only when the allegations are to the effect that it is a false document within the meaning of Section 464 of the IPC. Applying that ratio decidendi, the non-traceability of the Tahsildar's proceedings in that office after the lapse of twenty-two years cannot ipso facto render the birth registration a fabricated or forged document.

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s.420 — s.464 — Cheating — Quashing of the First Information Report — Discrepancy between Church records and secular official records — Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s.420 — Cheating — Essential ingredients of dishonest inducement and mens rea — Held: Section 420 IPC is attracted only upon a dishonest inducement to deliver property, mens rea at the time of the inducement and intent to deceive the complainant. The discrepancy between the Church records and the official records does not attract these ingredients. (¶26, ¶35) Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s.420 — Cheating — Complainant not personally deceived — Held further: The complainant has not averred in the complaint that he was personally deceived by the discrepancy. Nor is it a case of impersonation, since it is not alleged that the baptismal name and the civil name refer to two wholly distinct individuals. (¶33, ¶36) Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s.464 — Forged document — Non-traceability of a document in the records — Held further: Mere non-traceability of a document in the records of the office after a lapse of years cannot ipso facto render it fabricated or forged; a document is forged only where the allegation is that it is a false document within Section 464. (¶29, ¶30) Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s.420 — Quashing of the FIR — Abuse of the process of law — Held further: Where the essential ingredients of the offence are manifestly not attracted on the allegations in the First Information Report, its continuation is an abuse of the process of law and it stands quashed. Petition allowed. (¶37, ¶38)

One judgment a day. That's the whole habit.

Read the full text of Most Rev.Dr.Jeevanandam v. The State of Tamil Nadu — and get the Supreme Court's output as a five-minute daily read, with plain-language headnotes and the questions each judgment settles.

Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India