2024 (4) TMI 1254 - SC - Indian Laws

Challenge to summoning order - cheating or criminal conspiracy - liability to face trial under Section 420 read with Section 120-B IPC - HELD THAT - The Sessions Court held that no offence punishable under Section 420 read with Section 120-B IPC was made out as the factum of earlier marriage of the respondent no.1 was clearly disclosed to the appellant. The Sessions Judge failed to appreciate the fact that certain events had taken place thereafter namely apprising the appellant about the decree of divorce having been passed and showing the forged copy thereof to him on mobile. The Learned Sessions Court has considered the revision against the summoning order as if after trial the findings of conviction or acquittal was to be recorded. It was a preliminary stage of summoning. For summoning of an accused prima facie case is to be made out on the basis of allegations in the complaint and the pre-summoning evidence led by the complainant. In a challenge by the appellant to the aforesaid order in the quashing petition the High Court dismissed the petition without recording any reasons - Considering the material on record the approach of the Learned Sessions Court and the High Court in setting aside the summoning order against the accused persons i.e. respondent nos.1, 2 and 3 under Section 420 read with Section 120-B IPC is not legally sustainable. Conclusion - Prima facie case was made out for issuing process against the respondents to face trial for the offence punishable under Section 420 read with Section 120-B IPC for which they were summoned. The impugned orders passed by the High Court and the Sessions Court are set-aside and that of the Magistrate is restored - Appeal allowed.

Summary

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal questions considered by the Court were:

(a) Whether the respondents could be summoned to face trial under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for cheating the appellant by dishonestly inducing him into marriage through misrepresentation regarding the respondent no.1's marital status;

(b) Whether the respondents were liable under Section 120-B IPC for criminal conspiracy in furtherance of the alleged cheating;

(c) Whether the Sessions Court and the High Court erred in setting aside the summoning order issued by the Magistrate under the aforesaid sections;

(d) The scope and standard of judicial scrutiny at the stage of summoning an accused under Sections 420 and 120-B IPC, particularly in cases involving matrimonial disputes and allegations of forgery and misrepresentation.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue (a): Prima facie case for offence under Section 420 IPC for cheating by misrepresentation

Relevant legal framework and precedents: Section 420 IPC punishes cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property or valuable security. The threshold at the summoning stage is whether a prima facie case is made out based on the complaint and preliminary evidence. The Court must not delve into detailed fact-finding or weigh evidence as in a trial.

Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court noted that the appellant and respondent no.1 met through a matrimonial site where the respondent had disclosed her status as "process of divorce is under consideration." Subsequent meetings involved showing the appellant a smudged and unclear photocopy of a divorce decree, claimed to be pending judicial signature. The marriage was solemnized on the basis of this representation.

Later, it was revealed that the respondent no.1 was still married at the time of marriage, and the document shown was forged. The appellant was induced to marry and to provide Rs. 2 lakhs and bear marriage expenses based on this misrepresentation. The Court found that these facts, if accepted, constituted cheating within the meaning of Section 420 IPC.

Key evidence and findings: The appellant's complaint, oral and documentary evidence including the forged divorce decree shown on mobile phone, the pregnancy and subsequent revelation of the respondent's undivorced status, and the threats made by respondents to deter the appellant from taking action.

Application of law to facts: The Court emphasized that at the summoning stage, the Magistrate was justified in issuing process as a prima facie case was made out. The Sessions Court erred in treating the revision as if it were a trial, requiring proof beyond reasonable doubt rather than prima facie satisfaction.

Treatment of competing arguments: The respondents argued that full disclosure was made and no cheating occurred. The Court rejected this, highlighting that the alleged concealment and showing of a forged document post initial disclosure amounted to dishonest inducement.

Conclusion: A prima facie case under Section 420 IPC was established, warranting summoning of respondents for trial.

Issue (b): Liability under Section 120-B IPC for criminal conspiracy

Relevant legal framework and precedents: Section 120-B IPC penalizes criminal conspiracy to commit an offence. The Court must consider whether there was an agreement between the accused to cheat the complainant.

Court's interpretation and reasoning: The respondents no.2 and no.3 were alleged to have conspired with respondent no.1 to induce the appellant dishonestly. The Court found that the coordinated actions, including presenting the forged document and receiving money, indicated a prima facie conspiracy.

Key evidence and findings: The involvement of respondent nos.2 and 3 in meetings, their knowledge of the respondent no.1's marital status, and participation in the misrepresentation formed the basis for conspiracy allegations.

Application of law to facts: Given the prima facie evidence, the Court held that summoning respondents no.2 and 3 under Section 120-B IPC in conjunction with Section 420 IPC was appropriate.

Treatment of competing arguments: The respondents contended absence of conspiracy and that no offence of cheating was made out. The Court found these contentions premature at the summoning stage.

Conclusion: The prima facie case for criminal conspiracy was made out, justifying summoning of respondents no.2 and 3.

Issue (c): Validity of orders passed by Sessions Court and High Court setting aside summoning orders

Relevant legal framework and precedents: The power of revision courts to interfere with summoning orders is limited and must be exercised with caution. The standard is whether the Magistrate had sufficient material to proceed.

Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Sessions Court set aside the summoning order with respect to cheating and conspiracy offences, holding that no offence was made out. The High Court dismissed the appellant's challenge without reasons.

The Supreme Court found that the Sessions Court misapprehended the nature of the summoning stage, treating it as a trial rather than a preliminary inquiry. The High Court's dismissal without reasons was also found unsatisfactory.

Key evidence and findings: The Court reviewed the complaint, preliminary evidence, and the chronology of events, concluding that the Magistrate's order was legally sustainable.

Application of law to facts: The Court restored the Magistrate's summoning order, setting aside the Sessions Court and High Court orders.

Treatment of competing arguments: The respondents' arguments on absence of offence and conspiracy were rejected as premature at this stage.

Conclusion: The orders of the Sessions Court and High Court setting aside the summoning order were quashed, and the Magistrate's order restored.

Issue (d): Standard of judicial scrutiny at summoning stage in matrimonial disputes involving forgery and cheating

Relevant legal framework and precedents: At the summoning stage, courts apply a prima facie standard, not a full trial standard. The Court reiterated this principle, emphasizing that detailed evidence appraisal is inappropriate.

Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court observed that the Sessions Court failed to appreciate this distinction and wrongly interfered with the summoning order.

Key evidence and findings: The Court relied on the preliminary evidence and complaint to find sufficient material for summoning.

Application of law to facts: The Court underscored that the trial court is the appropriate forum to examine the merits and evidence in detail.

Treatment of competing arguments: The respondents' submissions on the merits were considered premature and unsuitable for the summoning stage.

Conclusion: The Court reaffirmed the limited scope of judicial scrutiny at the summoning stage and restored the Magistrate's order accordingly.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

The Court held:

"The Learned Sessions Court has considered the revision against the summoning order as if after trial the findings of conviction or acquittal was to be recorded. It was a preliminary stage of summoning. For summoning of an accused, prima facie case is to be made out on the basis of allegations in the complaint and the pre-summoning evidence led by the complainant."

"Considering the material on record, in our opinion the approach of the Learned Sessions Court and the High Court in setting aside the summoning order against the accused persons i.e. respondent nos.1,2 and 3 under Section 420 read with Section 120-B IPC is not legally sustainable."

"From the facts as pleaded in complaint and the evidence led by the appellant, prima facie case was made out for issuing process against the respondents to face trial for the offence punishable under Section 420 read with Section 120-B IPC."

Core principles established include:

- The threshold for summoning under Sections 420 and 120-B IPC is a prima facie case based on complaint and preliminary evidence, not proof beyond reasonable doubt.

- Concealment of the true marital status and presentation of forged documents to induce marriage can constitute cheating under Section 420 IPC.

- Coordinated acts involving misrepresentation and receipt of money may amount to criminal conspiracy under Section 120-B IPC.

- Revision courts must exercise caution in interfering with summoning orders and not substitute trial findings at the preliminary stage.

Final determinations:

- The summoning orders against respondent no.1 under Section 420 IPC and against respondent nos.2 and 3 under Section 420 read with Section 120-B IPC were restored.

- The impugned orders of the Sessions Court and High Court setting aside these summoning orders were quashed.

- The trial court was directed to decide the case on merits based on evidence led by parties.