1. Fraudulent procurement of a cheque and forgery of signature to extract funds — FIR and final report under Sections 420, 465, 468, and 472 IPC. (Para 2 , 6 )
Back
Next 
2022 Supreme(SC) 664
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, A.S. BOPANNA, JJ.
M.P. Ramani – Appellant
Versus
State of Kerala & Anr. - Respondents
Criminal Appeal No.1196 of 2022 (Arising out of SLP (Criminal) No.485 of 2022)
Decided on : 11-08-2022
Important Points
IMPORTANT POINT
High Court while exercising power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., is expected to pass a reasoned and speaking order.
High Court while exercising power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., is expected to pass a reasoned and speaking order.
Subject
Criminal Law - Quashing of FIR
Act Referred
Headnote
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 420, 465, 468 and 472 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 482 – Cheating and forgery – High Court by impugned order, has allowed petition and quashed proceedings – Appellant herein, as de facto complainant had made a specific allegation that cheque leaf belonging to appellant which was about 30 years old and was not in use had been wrongly secured, her signature was forged and fabricated by respondent No.2 to extract amount of Rs.3,50,000/- – Investigating officer has cited as many as 15 witnesses to lead to charge against respondent No.2 herein that with an intention to commit offence – Order of High Court while exercising power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., is not only brief, but also cryptic – High Court, neither has adverted to facts arising in the case in detail nor to nature of allegation which led to investigation and filing of final report – Impugned order set aside and matter restored to file of High Court for fresh decision. (Paras 6, 7, 8 and 9)
Facts of the case:
By impugned order, High Court has allowed the petition filed by Respondent No.2 herein under Section 482 of Cr.P.C and quashed the final report submitted alleging commission of offence under Sections 420, 465, 468 and 472 IPC by respondent No.2 herein.
Findings of Court:
Order dated 07.10.2020 passed by High Court in Crl.M.C. No.1792 of 2019 (D) is set aside. Crl.M.C. No.1792 of 2019 (D) is restored to the file of High Court of Kerala to enable a decision afresh and in accordance with law. All contentions of the parties are left open.
Result : Appeal allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Raghenth Basant, Adv. Mrs. Anupriya, Adv. Mr. Sajith. P, AOR Ms. Sarika Verma, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Nishe Rajen Shonker, AOR Mrs. Anu K. Joy, Adv. Mr. Alim Anvar, Adv. Mr. Abraham C. Mathews, Adv. Mr. Ardhendumauli Kumar Prasad, AOR
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Raghenth Basant, Adv. Mrs. Anupriya, Adv. Mr. Sajith. P, AOR Ms. Sarika Verma, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Nishe Rajen Shonker, AOR Mrs. Anu K. Joy, Adv. Mr. Alim Anvar, Adv. Mr. Abraham C. Mathews, Adv. Mr. Ardhendumauli Kumar Prasad, AOR
Table of Contents
2. Accused sought quashing of the final report under Section 482 Cr.P.C., contending the cheque belonged to the complainant and bore their signature. (Para 3 )
3. The High Court's order was cryptic, failing to analyze the specific allegations of forgery or the evidence presented in the final report. (Para 7 )
4. Exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. requires a comprehensive examination of facts and law, adhering to established judicial guidelines against cryptic orders. (Para 7 , 8 )
5. High Court order set aside and the petition restored to the High Court for a fresh decision on merits. (Para 9 , 10 )
6. What is the requirement for a High Court when exercising its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash proceedings?
The court must not pass cryptic orders; it must comprehensively advert to the facts and law, considering the nature of the allegations and the evidence in the final report, while following established judicial guidelines. (Para 7 , 8 )
7. How should a court treat allegations of forgery when the document in question belongs to the complainant?
The court must examine whether the document was wrongly possessed and the signature forged, rather than simply noting the document's ownership to justify quashing the proceedings. (Para 7 )
JUDGMENT :
A.S. Bopanna, J.
1. The appellant herein who was arrayed as Respondent No.2 in Crl.M.C. No.1792 of 2019 (D) before the High Court of Kerala is before us in this appeal assailing the order dated 07.10.2020. By the said order, the High Court has allowed the petition filed by Respondent No.2 herein under Section 482 of Cr.P.C and quashed the final report submitted alleging commission of offence under Sections 420, 465, 468 and 472 IPC by respondent No.2 herein.
2. The brief facts leading to the case is that the appellant herein as de facto complainant filed a complaint dated 14.01.2014 before the Sub-Inspector, Payyannur Police Station alleging that the cheque bearing No.813/063676 of Canara Bank, Payyannur Branch relating to A/c No.13111/2019 standing in the name of the appellant has been fraudulently obtained by the respondent No.2 herein and on forging the appellant’s signature has attempted to extract amount from her account. It is specifically alleged that the signature on the cheque is forged and the cheque is drawn for a sum of Rs.3,50,000/- (Rupees three lakhs and fifty thousand) and was presented through the Federal Bank, Payyannur Branch through the account maintained by respondent No.2. The complaint further alleges that the cheque was allotted to the appellant by the Canara Bank, 30 years back and was not in use for want of new MCRI number.
Based on the said complaint, FIR No.66 dated 20.01.2014 came to be registered for offence under Sections 420, 465, 468 and 472 IPC. Pursuant thereto the investigation was conducted and the final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was filed before the Competent Court. The respondent No.2 herein was accordingly accused of having committed the crime alleged by the appellant.
3. The appellant, at that stage filed the petition under Section 482 before the High Court seeking that the final report be quashed. The appellant was arrayed as respondent No.2 to the said petition. The High Court by the impugned order dated 07.10.2020 has allowed the petition and quashed the proceedings. The brief impugned order reads as hereunder:
“ORDER
A final report was submitted alleging the offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 468 and 472 IPC based on an alleged issuance of a cheque in favour of the accused. It is alleged that the accused somehow obtained cheque leaf belonged to the de facto complainant and forged the same into a cheque signed by him. On investigation it was revealed that the cheque leaf is belonged to the de facto complainant and it contains his signature. Final report was submitted on the allegation that the accused threatened the de facto complainant by using the said cheque. But no such case was raised by the complainant. The submission of final report for the abovesaid offence hence is an abuse of process of the court and quashed.
Crl. M.C. is allowed accordingly.”
4. The appellant, thus being aggrieved is before this Court assailing the said order.
5. Heard Shri Raghenth Basant, learned counsel for the appellant, Shri Ardhendumauli Kumar Prasad, learned counsel for respondent No.2, Shri Nishe Rajen Shonker, learned counsel for respondent No.1, and perused the appeal papers.
6. In the background of the contentions urged, a perusal of the appeal papers indicates that the appellant herein, as the de facto complainant had made a specific allegation that the cheque leaf belonging to the appellant which was about 30 years old and was not in use had been wrongly secured, her signature was forged and fabricated by the respondent No.2 to extract the amount of Rs.3,50,000/- (Rupees three lakhs and fifty thousand) indicated therein. Based on such complaint, the law was set in motion. The final report submitted under Section 173 Cr.P.C. on completion of the investigation would disclose that the investigating officer has cited as many as 15 witnesses to lead to the charge against respondent No.2 herein that with an intention to commit the offence, he had written an amount of Rs.3,50,000/
