Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

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

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Pramod Dayal, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Sarad Kumar Singhania, AOR Ms. Rashmi Singhania, Adv.

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.

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.

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 :-

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