Madras HC Quashes Charges Against Lawyer Who Filed Client’s ₹5-Lakh Promissory-Note Suit, Finding No Material He Joined The Alleged Loan Scheme Or Knew The Note Was Forged

The second respondent alleged that A1–A3 promised to arrange a loan of ₹75 crores and obtained ₹1.5 crores and signed blank instruments from him.

The petitioner, A4, was not named in the FIR but was later charged on the allegation that he dictated the completion of a signed promissory note for ₹5 lakhs and used it in a suit filed for A1.

The prosecution relied, among other things, on a witness statement that an advocate’s clerk filled in the note at the petitioner’s office on his instructions.

The suit was dismissed for default, and no property was obtained through it.

The petitioner sought to quash the charge sheet under Section 528 of the BNSS.

The Court applied Sections 463 and 464 IPC, under which forgery requires the making of a false document.

Sections 465, 467 and 468 IPC, concerning forgery and specified aggravated forms.

Section 471 IPC, which requires fraudulent or dishonest use of a forged document with knowledge or reason to believe that it is forged.

Section 20 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, which gives the holder of a signed and delivered instrument prima facie authority to complete it.

The requirements of Section 420 IPC, including deception, dishonest inducement and delivery of property.

The requirement of an agreement to commit an illegal act for criminal conspiracy under Section 120-B IPC.

In exercising its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS, the Court relied on the categories in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, identified as categories (1) and (3).

The Court found that the second respondent had signed and delivered the promissory note to A1, while the prosecution did not allege that A4 wrote or signed it; the blanks were completed by a witness.

The materials did not show that A4 knew the terms on which the note was delivered or knew that no debt was due, so the Court found no basis for forgery charges against him.

For Section 471, the final report stated that A4 had reason to believe the document was original, which the Court considered inconsistent with knowledge that it was forged; filing a client’s document in a suit, without more, was not fraudulent use.

The alleged loan inducement and delivery of property predated A4’s alleged involvement, and the suit yielded no property, defeating the alleged basis for cheating.

Nor was there material connecting A4 to an agreement or the loan scheme; the alleged act occurred after the object of the scheme had already been achieved.

The Court accordingly held that the materials did not disclose the essential ingredients of the offences identified in its analysis.

The Court directed that its observations were confined to A4 and should not affect the proceedings against the other accused.

The connected miscellaneous petition was closed.