Madras HC Won’t Quash Case Against Treasurer Who Signed Allegedly Fabricated Resolutions Claiming 700 Members Backed Temple Trustee Picks

The petitioner, arrayed as A4, sought to quash proceedings in C.C.No.1023 of 2025, where he faced charges under Sections 147, 420, 465, 468 and 471 of the IPC.

The prosecution alleged that he signed, as Treasurer, resolutions purporting to record the decision of a community body and the support of 700 eligible members for the appointment of two non-hereditary temple trustees.

The resolutions were allegedly fabricated and submitted to the HR & CE Joint Commissioner, who appointed the proposed trustees.

A subsequent statutory enquiry found the resolutions fabricated, and a police investigation followed.

The petitioner argued that he had merely signed the resolutions, gained no benefit, and that the dispute was civil in nature; he also challenged the applicability of the forgery and cheating offences.

Section 464 IPC treats a document as false where a person dishonestly or fraudulently makes or signs it with the intention that it be believed to have been made or signed by, or under the authority of, someone who did not give that authority.

Sections 468 and 471 IPC concern, respectively, forgery for the purpose of cheating and using a forged document as genuine; Section 420 IPC applies where deception induces delivery of property or another legally cognisable consequence, and wrongful gain may satisfy the dishonest element under Section 24 IPC.

Mohammed Ibrahim v. State of Bihar, (2009) 8 SCC 751, distinguishes a document executed by a person in their own name from one falsely claiming to be made by, or under the authority of, another.

At the quashing stage, disputed factual defences and questions of intention are ordinarily for trial where the allegations and investigation materials prima facie disclose offences.

The Court held that the resolutions were not merely personal documents signed by the petitioner in his own name: they purported to record the collective decision of a community body and the consent of 700 eligible members.

The allegations that two different bodies were shown as passing resolutions at the same time and place, that one resolution used the registration number of a dissolved society, and that supporting records included minors and ineligible persons were capable, if proved, of showing false claims of authority and consent.

The resolutions were submitted to the Joint Commissioner and allegedly induced the appointment of A5 and A6, prima facie supporting the forgery, use and cheating allegations.

The petitioner’s signature on both resolutions, his claimed lack of benefit, and his asserted lack of intention raised matters for trial.

The Court left the Section 147 charge to the trial court and found that uncertainty about that charge did not warrant quashing the remaining proceedings.

It dismissed the petition, dispensed with the petitioner’s personal appearance before the trial court unless specifically directed, and closed the connected miscellaneous petition.