Case of fake documents cannot be quashed merely because there is no loss of revenue to government: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court recently has observed that cases pertaining to fake and fabricated documents cannot be quashed merely because no wrongful loss of revenue was caused to the government [Missu Naseem and Another v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others]..A Division Bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and MM Sundresh was adjudicating an appeal against a 2011 order of the Andhra Pradesh High Court.A First Information Report (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 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."Even assuming for a moment that the petitioners produced fake and fabricated documents, that has not caused any wrongful loss to the Government. Hence, this Court is of the view that a registration of crime and conducting investigation are abuse of process of law and, hence, the proceedings in the crime are liable to be quashed," the High Court noted while quashing the case against private respondents.This led to the present appeal before the top court. .The Supreme Court in its judgment held that the reasoning given by the High Court was totally unsustainable. "The effect of this reasoning is that fabrication of documents is permissible if it does not cause loss to the revenue! We have thus no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the impugned order must go and is consequently set aside," the top Court observed while setting aside the order of the High Court.The Court was also of the view that no purpose would be served in remitting the matter back to the High Court or for restarting the investigation in view of the passage of time since more than a decade passed after the High Court judgment. However, the Court clarified that since it has quashed the High Court order, the private respondents cannot take advantage of the same as a clean chit to them."The civil Court will take its own view on the basis of the evidence before is regarding the inter se disputes between the private parties," the Court held.Importantly, before concluding the Court expressed its regret that the instant case remained pending for almost 8 years before the Supreme Court..Senior Advocate Sidharth Luthra, Advocate-on-Record Praseena Elizabeth, advocates S Udaya Kumar Sagar, Bina Madhavan, Balaji Varma, Akansha Mehra, Rao Vishwaja, Anmol Kheta, Lakshay Mehta and Rao Vishwaja appeared for the appellants.Advocates-on-Record Mahfooz Ahsan Nazki, Ananga Bhattacharya, advocates Polanki Gowtham, Shaik Mohamad Haneef, T Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy, KV Girish Chowdary and Rajeshwari Mukherjee appeared for the respondents..[Read Order]