Section 471 requires knowledge or reason to believe a document is forged.

The petitioner’s name appeared among candidates selected in a 2011 special recruitment drive for constables in District Jammu.

He submitted a Permanent Resident Certificate that the investigation found to be forged.

The charge sheet alleged that his maternal grandmother, Shanti Devi, procured the certificate in connivance with a Patwari when the petitioner was 13; both allegedly died before the case proceeded.

The Sessions Court found that only an offence under Section 471 RPC was made out against the petitioner and returned the challan to the Magistrate, who framed charges.

The petitioner sought quashing, arguing that he neither forged the certificate nor knew it was forged

Whether the material in the charge sheet established that the petitioner knew or had reason to believe that the Permanent Resident Certificate was forged, as required for an offence under Section 471 RPC

Whether the charge and proceedings against the petitioner should be quashed where the certificate was allegedly forged when he was a minor and the record did not establish his knowledge or reason to believe it was forged

Section 471 RPC criminalises the fraudulent or dishonest use as genuine of a forged document where the user knows or has reason to believe it is forged.

Its relevant ingredients are that the document is forged, the accused uses it as genuine, the accused knows or has reason to believe it is forged, and the use is fraudulent or dishonest

The Court relied on A.S. Krishnan v. State of Kerala, (2004) 11 SCC 576, which explains that “reason to believe” requires sufficient cause, assessed through probable reasoning from the circumstances; it is more than suspicion or doubt.

The Court also referred to Section 26 IPC’s definition of “reason to believe”

The record showed that the petitioner presented the forged certificate as genuine, but the alleged forgery was attributed to his grandmother and the Patwari, not to him; the petitioner was 13 when it was prepared

The State argued that the petitioner should have inferred the certificate was false because his father lived in Rajasthan

The Court considered that submission against evidence that the petitioner had been adopted by his maternal grandmother, a J&K permanent resident, and had been brought up by her in Akhnoor.

In those circumstances, his father’s residence in Rajasthan did not establish that he knew or had sufficient cause to believe the certificate was forged.

The required mental element under Section 471 RPC was therefore not made out

It set aside the Magistrate’s order framing charges and quashed the challan and proceedings emanating from it