1. Official of Housing Board accused of aiding forgery and cheating in property transfer via forged Power of Attorney — Chargesheet under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B IPC. (Para 2 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(SC) 24
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
C.T. RAVIKUMAR, SANJAY KAROL, JJ.
Dinesh Kumar Mathur – Appellant
Versus
State Of M.P. & Anr. – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 4915 Of 2024 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition(Crl.) No.5248 Of 2017)
Decided On : 02-01-2025
Important Points
IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Cheating, forgery and conspiracy – If intent is on face of it is absent qua one of offences in same transaction, it is absent in respect of other offence as well.
(2) Sections when put into a charge-sheet, cannot be based on bald assertions of connivance, there must be a substance.
(1) Cheating, forgery and conspiracy – If intent is on face of it is absent qua one of offences in same transaction, it is absent in respect of other offence as well.
(2) Sections when put into a charge-sheet, cannot be based on bald assertions of connivance, there must be a substance.
Subject
Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure
Act Referred
Headnote
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B read with Section 34 [Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 – Sections 319, 318, 338, 336 and 61(2) read with Section 3(5)] – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Sections 197 and 482 [Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Sections 218 and 528] – Cheating, forgery and conspiracy – Common intention – Refusal to quash FIR and subsequent proceedings – No intent can be hinted to where appellant had willfully, with intent to defraud, acted upon allegedly forged Power of Attorney – Neither has anything been brought in charge-sheet upon completion of investigation to show that requirements of Section 120-B have been met – Nor that appellant had any information or knowledge about subject Power of Attorney being forged – If intent is on face of it is absent qua one of offences in same transaction, it is absent in respect of other offence as well – No intention whatsoever could be attributed to appellant and in absence of any intention attributable to him, no criminal offence can be made out – FIR and other materials are unable to disclose any cognizable offence – Sections when put into a charge-sheet, cannot be based on bald assertions of connivance, there must be a substance which is entirely lacking in present case – Appellant’s official duty would be in furtherance of the act – Criminal proceedings closed. [Madhya Pradesh Griha Nirman Mandal Adhiniyam, 1972 – Section 83] (Paras 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15)
Facts of the case:
Impugned in this appeal is judgment and order dated 28th April, 2017 of High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur (Bench at Indore) passed in Misc. Criminal Case No.12383 of 2016, whereby a petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking quashing of First Information Report and subsequent proceedings in Crime No.241 of 2016, was refused.
Only point to be considered is whether appellant as an employee of Housing Board had prima facie involvement in alleged forgery and cheating committed in connection with property which was sought to be registered in the name of a particular person by way of a Power of Attorney.
Findings of Court:
Impugned judgment passed by High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur dated 28th April, 2017 passed in Misc. Criminal Case No.12383 of 2016, is quashed and set aside. All proceedings arising from subject FIR and subsequent proceedings in Crime No.241 of 2016 stand closed.
Result : Appeal allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- crime and sentencing
- practice and procedure
- administrative law
Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Pramod Dayal, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Sarad Kumar Singhania, AOR Ms. Rashmi Singhania, Adv.
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Pramod Dayal, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Sarad Kumar Singhania, AOR Ms. Rashmi Singhania, Adv.
Table of Contents
2. Protection under statutory provisions for official acts — Dispute essentially civil in nature — Absence of mens rea and lack of evidence for criminal conspiracy. (Para 6 )
3. No prima facie evidence of dishonest intent or conspiracy — Act performed in discharge of official duty — Allegations based on bald assertions of connivance. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 )
4. Criminal proceedings should be quashed where allegations do not prima facie constitute an offence or where official acts are protected by statutory immunity. (Para 11 , 14 )
5. Appeal allowed — High Court order set aside — Criminal proceedings and FIR quashed. (Para 15 )
6. When is a public servant protected from prosecution for acts performed in their official capacity?
Protection is available when the act is directly and reasonably connected with official duty or performed in good faith in pursuance of the relevant Act, provided the crime is not merely committed under the colour of public authority. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 )
7. What are the essential ingredients to establish the offence of cheating under Section 420 IPC?
It requires a false representation made with prior knowledge of its falsity and dishonest intention to deceive, which induces the delivery of property or valuable securities. (Para 12 )
8. What constitutes a criminal conspiracy under Section 120-B IPC?
The essence of criminal conspiracy is an agreement between two or more persons to do an illegal act or an act by illegal means, requiring a meeting of minds. (Para 12 )
9. Under what circumstances can a court quash an FIR and subsequent criminal proceedings?
Proceedings may be quashed if the allegations, taken at face value, do not prima facie constitute any offence or fail to disclose a cognizable offence. (Para 14 )
JUDGMENT :
(Sanjay Karol, J.)
1. Impugned in this appeal is the judgment and order dated 28th April, 2017 of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur (Bench at Indore) passed in Misc. Criminal Case No.12383 of 2016, whereby a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 19731[For short, Cr.P.C.] seeking quashing of the First Information Report dated 14th May, 2016 and subsequent proceedings in Crime No.241 of 2016, was refused.
2. The facts, as emanating from the record, are that: -
2.1 House No.D-90, Dindayal Nagar, Ratlam, was allotted on hire purchase basis to one Gopaldas s/o Narayandas, vide agreement between him and the Madhya Pradesh State Housing Board on 10th January, 1991. He sold the said property, and handed over possession thereof, to one Mangi Bai upon receipt of Rs.12,500/- as consideration. It was agreed inter se these parties that upon being granted the registration of the house, Gopaldas would execute a sale deed in favour of Mangi Bai. An agreement to sell to such effect was drawn up on 11th January, 1991.
2.2 Mangi Bai, subsequently for a consideration of Rs.19,000/- sold the said property to respondent No.22[Hereinafter, the ‘complainant’], vide agreement to sell dated 17th December, 1994.
2.3 One Ashok Dayya, who has been made co-accused in the complaint, has allegedly, in connivance with other persons namely, Ramesh Sharma, Jitendra Sharma, Narendra @ Pappu Sharma and members of the Housing Board, forged the Power of Attorney of the original seller - Gopaldas in his favour and got the said property registered in his own name.
2.4 The appellant herein is an official of the Housing Board and it is said that the act perpetrated by Ashok was with his aid and assistance. It is against this transfer of property that the subject FIR was lodged, and after investigation a chargesheet filed under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B r/w 34, Indian Penal Code 18603[For short ‘IPC’] against five persons, namely, Ashok (A-1), Ramesh Chand (A-2), Nanalal (A-3), Krishna Singh (A-4) and Dinesh Kumar D.K. (A-5).
3. The appellant, aggrieved by the above action, preferred the petition for quashing before the High Court. The reasoning for the High Court refusing such prayer is found in paragraph 7 of the impugned judgment and order. For ease of reference, the same is extracted hereinbelow :-
“[7] From the charge-sheet it is clear that police found prima facie case against the applicant and filed charge-sheet against him. In the charge-sheet it is clearly mentioned that applicant without inquiring whether alleged power of attorney was executed by Gopaldas or not in connivance with other co-accused for getting illegal profit on the basis of forged power of attorney executed sale deed of suit house in favour of co-accused Ashok Dayya. In the statement of Rajesh, Nilesh, Deepak, Ashish, Mangibai, Nemubai @ Nirmlabai, Manjubai and Gopaldas it is mentioned that co-accused Ashok Dayya in connivance with employee and officers of Housing Board got sale deed of suit house executed in his favour on the basis of forged power of attorney of Gopaldas. So prima facie It appears that applicant was also involved in the said crime.
Whether applicant was involved in conspiracy or he bonafidely without knowing the fact that power of attorney produced by co-accused Ashok Dayya is forged executed the sale deed of suit house in favour of co-accused Ashok Dayya is a matter of fact which requires evidence to decide. Prima facie involvement of applicant in the crime appears from the charge-sheet and case dairy statement of witnesses, so no question of quashing of FIR arises.”
4. Before proceeding further, it is important to note that the complainant filed a civil suit against five persons, namely, Gopaldas, Mangi Bai, Nirmlabai, Ashok Kumar and Manager Housing Board, Housing and Infrastructure Development Board Division, Ratlam, M.P. bearing No.99A/2014 on 5th May, 2014 which was on the file of the learned Vth Civil Judge, Grade-2, Rat
