2024 Supreme(SC) 58

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SURYA KANT, DIPANKAR DATTA, JJ.
Mariam Fasihuddin & Anr. - Appellants
Versus
State by Adugodi Police Station & Anr. - Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 335 of 2024 (Arising out of Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 2877 of 2021)
Decided on : 22-01-2024

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Offences of ‘forgery’ and ‘cheating’ intersect and converge, as act of forgery is committed with intent to deceive or cheat an individual.
(2) Not every unlawful act automatically qualifies as ‘deceitful’.

Headnote:

(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 420 – Cheating – Term ‘property’ employed in Section 420 IPC has a well-defined connotation – Every species of valuable right or interest that is subject to ownership and has an exchangeable value is ordinarily understood as ‘property’ – It also describes one’s exclusive right to possess, use and dispose of a thing – Whereas immoveable property is generally understood to mean land, benefits arising out of land and things attached or permanently fastened to earth. (Para 13)

(B) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 468, 471 and 420 – Forgery and cheating – Offence of forgery requires preparation of a false document with dishonest intention of causing damage or injury – Offences of ‘forgery’ and ‘cheating’ intersect and converge, as act of forgery is committed with intent to deceive or cheat an individual. (Paras 22 and 23)

(C) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 420, 468, 471, 120B and 201 read with Section 34 – Passports Act, 1967 – Section 12(b) – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 239 – Cheating, forgery, conspiracy and disappearance of evidence – Common intention – Refusal to discharge – Appellant had forged his signatures on minor child’s passport application – In order to attract provisions of Section 420 IPC, prosecution has to not only prove that accused has cheated someone but also that by doing so, he has dishonestly induced person who is cheated to deliver property – For offence of cheating, fraudulent and dishonest intention must exist from inception when promise or representation was made – Every deceitful act is not unlawful, just as not every unlawful act is deceitful – Some acts may be termed both as unlawful as well as deceitful, and such acts alone will fall within purview of Section 420 IPC – Cheating generally involves a preceding deceitful act that dishonestly induces a person to deliver any property or any part of a valuable security, prompting induced person to undertake said act, which they would not have done but for inducement – Not every unlawful act automatically qualifies as ‘deceitful’ – Motivations prompting either of Appellants to procure a passport for minor child were not rooted in deceit – Grant of passport to minor child did not confer any benefit upon Appellant-wife, nor did it result in any loss or damage to Respondent No. 2 – In same vein, Appellant No. 2, being father of Appellant-wife and assisting in securing passport for chid, derived no direct or indirect benefit from this action. (Paras 11, 12 and 16)

(D) Passports Act, 1967 – Section 12(b) – Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 420, 468, 471, 120B and 201 read with Section 34 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 239 – Cheating, forgery, conspiracy and disappearance of evidence – Common intention – Refusal to discharge – Grant of passport to minor child is nothing but a right conferred upon him by statute – Passport is meant to facilitate him to accompany his mother to London and stay with his father. However, there is not even a whisper of allegation or suggestion that passport was obtained to detriment of child’s wellbeing – Underlying intent of obtaining Passport was essential for Appellant-wife and minor child to live together with Respondent No. 2, on whose instructions Passport was statedly obtained – Conversely, it is actions of Respondent No. 2 that have seemingly deprived minor child of his right to seek care and company of his father, as Passport was allegedly taken away by Respondent No. 2 in a clandestine manner – It stands established that no dishonest intent can be made out against Appellants – Considering primary ingredient of dishonest intention itself could not be established against Appellants, offence of forgery too, has no legs to stand – Proceedings as against concerned Passport Officer already stand quashed – Investigating agency acted mechanically, in purported compliance with Trial Magistrate’s order – Elementary ingredients of ‘cheating’ and ‘forgery’ are missing – Continuation of criminal proceedings against Appellants is nothing but abuse of process of law – FIR and all proceedings arising therefrom quashed. (Paras 19, 23, 27, 34 and 39)

(E) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 173(8) – Further investigation – Provision for submitting a supplementary report infers that fresh oral or documentary evidence should be obtained rather than re-evaluating or reassessing material already collected and considered by investigating agency while submitting initial police report, known as charge-sheet under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. – In absence of any new evidence found to substantiate conclusions drawn by investigating officer in supplementary report, Judicial Magistrate is not compelled to take cognizance, as such a report lacks investigative rigour and fails to satisfy requisites of Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. (Para 27)

Facts of the case:

Genesis of present controversy lies in a marital dispute – Charges have been brought against Appellants for offences punishable under Sections 420, 468, 471, 120B, 201, read with Section 34 IPC, and Section 12(b) of Passports Act, 1967. Appellants assail judgment dated 18.02.2021, passed by High Court of Karnataka, at Bengaluru, whereby their Criminal Revision Petition challenging order dated 15.03.2018 of Trial Magistrate has been dismissed. Consequently, Appellants’ prayer to discharge them in connection with FIR No. 141/2010 under Sections 420, 468, 471 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 has been concurrently turned down.

Findings of Court:

Respondent No. 2 is liable to pay the cost of Rs. 1,00,000/- to Appellant No. 1. Ordered accordingly, Respondent No. 2 shall pay costs within six weeks, failing which the Trial Magistrate is directed to initiate coercive measures for recovery thereof.

Result : Appeal allowed.