In a significant ruling that provides relief to individuals facing criminal charges over old documents, the Supreme Court of India has clarified that a document cannot be branded as "forged" simply because it is no longer traceable in official government records.

A bench comprising Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Manoj Misra observed that public offices do not maintain every letter or certificate forever. Therefore, the mere absence of a record after a decade cannot be used as a ground to initiate criminal proceedings for forgery under the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

The case originated from a Joint Venture Agreement (JVA) signed in August 2010 between the appellants (Vandana Jain and others) and Motor General Sales Ltd. for property development in Kanpur. The project did not go as planned, leading to a fallout between the parties.

Nearly 11 years later, in March 2021, a criminal complaint was filed. The complainant alleged that the appellants had committed various offences, including cheating and forgery (Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, and 471 of the IPC). The primary allegation was that a specific letter from the Executive Magistrate—used by the appellants to prove their title over the property—was a "forged document."

The basis for this serious claim? When the complainant checked with the Magistrate’s office, the office reported that they could not find the letter in their records.

The appellants approached the Allahabad High Court to quash the FIR, arguing that the dispute was civil in nature and the forgery charges were baseless. However, the High Court refused to intervene, leading the parties to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court had to decide a fundamental question: Does the "non-traceability" of a document in a public office automatically make it a "false document" under Section 464 of the IPC?

The Supreme Court emphasized that for a document to be "forged," it must first meet the criteria of a "false document" as defined under Section 464 of the IPC.

Under the law, a person is said to make a false document if:

They dishonestly or fraudulently sign, seal, or execute a document with the intention of making it believe it was done by someone else or at a time they know it wasn't.
They alter a document without authority after it has been executed.
They obtain a document from someone through deception or while the person is of unsound mind.

Justice Manoj Misra, writing the judgment, pointed out that the complainant’s logic was flawed. The Court noted:

“It is a matter of common knowledge that certificates or letters are not maintained in perpetuity. Therefore, if, after 10 or 11 years, the office reports that such letter is not traceable, it cannot be said that it is forged.”

The Court further clarified that the burden of proof for forgery is much higher. Merely showing that an office clerk couldn't find a 10-year-old file does not satisfy the legal requirements of Section 464. To sustain a charge of forgery, there must be specific allegations that the document was created or altered with "dishonest or fraudulent intent" to represent something it is not.

This ruling is a crucial shield against the "criminalization of civil disputes." Often, in property or business conflicts, parties try to convert a breach of contract into a criminal case of forgery to exert pressure.

By stating that "non-traceability does not equal forgery," the Supreme Court has protected citizens from the consequences of poor record-keeping in government departments. It acknowledges the practical reality that files get lost, destroyed, or mismanaged over time, and a citizen should not face jail time just because a government office's archives are incomplete.

The Supreme Court ultimately set aside the Allahabad High Court’s order and quashed the criminal proceedings against the appellants. The bench reiterated that unless the specific ingredients of "making a false document" under Section 464 IPC are clearly present, a person cannot be prosecuted for forgery.

Case Details:

Case Title: Vandana Jain & Ors. v. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) [or relevant current citation]
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Manoj Misra