Making a False Document

Source : Bombay High Court 

Why in News? 

Recently, the bench of Justice MM Nerlikar held that issues relating to forgery of documents cannot be examined at the stage of deciding the interim custody of a seized vehicle. The Court observed that for granting interim custody, the primary considerations are whether the applicant is the owner and whether the vehicle was seized from their possession. 

• The Bombay High Court held in M/s. AU Small Finance Bank Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. 

What was the Background of M/s. AU Small Finance Bank Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (2025) Case? 

• AU Small Finance Bank Limited advanced a loan to Sunil Shrikrishna Nandhe (respondent no.3) for purchasing a Bolero pick-up vehicle bearing registration number MH 30 BD 0266. A hypothecation agreement was executed between the Bank and the borrower, giving the Bank ownership rights until full loan repayment. 
• Without repaying the loan, respondent no.3 allegedly sold the vehicle to Ravi Pradiprao Dange (respondent no.2) using forged documents, including a fabricated No Objection Certificate (NOC) and Form No.35. The Bank alleged that these documents were forged to effect the transfer fraudulently. 
• The Bank filed a complaint alleging offences punishable under Sections 420, 464, 468, and 469 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Pursuant to an order under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Rajapeth Police Station registered Crime No.1449/2021 against respondent no.3. During investigation, police seized the vehicle from respondent no.2. 
• Respondent no.2 had purchased the vehicle for Rs.5,53,000 by obtaining a loan from Mahindra and Mahindra Finance Company Limited. The RTO Amravati registered the vehicle in respondent no.2's name after examining and verifying the documents. Respondent no.2 had already paid 20 instalments towards his loan and was dependent on the vehicle's income for his family's livelihood. 
• Both the Bank and respondent no.2 filed applications under Section 454 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking interim custody of the seized vehicle. The Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No.9, Amravati, rejected the Bank's application and granted interim custody to respondent no.2 through an order dated 30 August 2022. 
• The Bank challenged this order by filing Criminal Revision No.105/2022 before the Additional Sessions Judge, Amravati. The revision was dismissed on 6 March 2024, upholding the Magistrate's order. The Bank then approached the High Court through this Criminal Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging both concurrent orders. 

What were the Court's Observations? 

• The Court observed that the allegations in the First Information Report pertained to forgery of documents by which the vehicle transfer was effected. However, at the stage of deciding interim custody, forgery of those documents cannot be discussed. 
• For deciding interim custody, it is necessary to examine firstly whether respondent no.2 is the owner and secondly whether the seizure of the vehicle was from the possession of respondent no.2. These are the two important conditions which need consideration. 
• The Court found that both factors were in favour of respondent no.2. It was undisputed that the vehicle was seized from respondent no.2's possession, the registration certificate was issued in his name, and he had availed a loan from Mahindra and Mahindra Finance Company Limited for purchasing the vehicle, having paid 20 instalments. 
• Relying on the Supreme Court's judgment in Vaibhav Jain v Hindustan Motors Pvt Ltd (2024), the Court noted that possession or control of a vehicle plays a vital role in determining ownership for interim custody purposes. 
• The Court observed that if interim custody is not handed over to respondent no.2, an irreparable loss would be caused to him, making it difficult for him to repay the loan to the finance company. It noted that the Magistrate had imposed adequate terms and conditions safeguarding the interests of both parties. 
• The Court held that both lower Courts rightly concluded that respondent no.2 would be entitled to interim custody. It found no reason to disturb the concurrent findings and dismissed the Writ Petition, upholding the orders granting interim custody of the vehicle to respondent no.2. 

What is Section 335 of BNS ? 

• Section 335 – Making a False Document 
• Definition: A person is said to make a false document or false electronic record in the following circumstances: 
• Fraudulent Creation: A person who dishonestly or fraudulently makes, signs, seals, executes a document, transmits an electronic record, or affixes an electronic signature with the intention of causing it to be believed that it was made by or by the authority of a person by whom he knows it was not made. 
• Unlawful Alteration: A person who, without lawful authority, dishonestly or fraudulently alters a document or electronic record in any material part by cancellation or otherwise, after it has been made or executed, whether by himself or by any other person living or dead. 
• Exploitation of Incapacity: A person who dishonestly or fraudulently causes any person to sign, seal, execute or alter a document or affix electronic signature, knowing that such person cannot understand the contents or nature of alteration due to mental illness, intoxication, or deception practised upon him.