2024 (2) TMI 1130 - SC - Indian Laws

Agony of trial - Forgery of the passport application - whether a prima facie case, to subject the Appellants to the agony of trial, has been made out - Whether the actions of the Appellants prima facie constitute the offence of cheating under Section 420 IPC? - Whether there has been a prima facie case made out for forgery under Sections 468 and 471 IPC? - Whether there has been a violation of Section 12(b) of the Passports Act, 1967? The offence of cheating under Section 420 IPC - HELD THAT - The background of this case and the chronology of events squarely indicate that it is the touchstone of a marital dispute. The insinuations made by Respondent No. 2, even if they possess an iota of truth, have miserably failed to prima facie establish the elements of cheating and thus, the accusation made against the Appellants under Section 420 IPC must fall flat. The offence of forgery under Sections 468 and 471 IPC - HELD THAT - The offences of forgery and cheating intersect and converge, as the act of forgery is committed with the intent to deceive or cheat an individual. Having extensively addressed the aspect of dishonest intent in the context of cheating under Section 420 IPC, it stands established that no dishonest intent can be made out against the Appellants. Our focus therefore will now be confined, for the sake of brevity, to the first element, i.e., the preparation of a false document. The determination of whether the Appellants prepared a false document, by forging Respondent No. 2 s signature, however, cannot be even prima facie ascertained at this juncture - It is also significant to highlight that the proceedings as against the concerned Passport Officer, who was implicated as Accused No. 4, already stand quashed. In such like situation and coupled with the nature of allegations, it cannot be appreciated as to why the Appellants be subjected to the ordeal of trial. Questions overlooked by the lower courts - HELD THAT - The Trial Magistrate should have approached the complaint with due care and circumspection, recognising that the allegations do not pertain to offences against property or documents related to property marks. Instead of wielding judicial authority against the Appellants, the Trial Magistrate should have exercised prudence, making at least a cursory effort to discern the actual victim or victimiser . The failure to do so is both fallible and atrocious - The sum and substance of the above discussion is that the elementary ingredients of cheating and forgery are conspicuously missing. Thus, the continuation of the criminal proceedings against the Appellants is nothing but an abuse of the process of law. In the context of Section 12(b) of the Passports Act, 1967 - HELD THAT - In the present case, it is crucial to consider that the State FSL report explicitly stated that the alleged forgery of Respondent No. 2 s signatures on the passport application was inconclusive. Moreover, the cognizance of such like offence can be taken only at the instance of the Prescribed Authority. No complaint to that effect has been disclosed against the Appellants. This Court, therefore, will exercise caution before invoking such severe offences and penalties solely on the basis of conjectures and surmises. The conduct exhibited by Respondent No. 2 - HELD THAT - The Appellants were unnecessarily implicated and dragged into criminal proceedings, thereby causing undue hardship to them. These instances shed light on Respondent No. 2 s conduct preceding the initiation of the present proceedings and provide insight into his motivations for instigating the same - It is undeniable that despite the evident discord between the Appellants and Respondent No. 2, resulting in numerous complaints and legal proceedings, the issue at hand has adversely impacted the rights and interests of the minor child. The right to travel abroad is a fundamental right of an individual, albeit not absolute, and subject to established legal procedures. The impugned judgment of the High Court dated 18.02.2021, and that of the Trial Magistrate dated 15.03.2018, are hereby set aside - Appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the actions of the Appellants prima facie constitute the offence of cheating under Section 420 IPC?
2. Whether there has been a prima facie case made out for forgery under Sections 468 and 471 IPC?
3. Whether there has been a violation of Section 12(b) of the Passports Act, 1967?

Summary:

1. Offence of Cheating under Section 420 IPC:
Section 420 IPC requires three components: (i) deception of any person, (ii) fraudulently or dishonestly inducing that person to deliver any property, and (iii) mens rea or dishonest intention at the time of making the inducement. The Court found that the Appellants' actions, even if they involved forging signatures, did not induce Respondent No. 2 to part with any property or valuable security. The motivations behind obtaining the passport for the minor child were not rooted in deceit, and there was no loss or damage to Respondent No. 2. Therefore, the essential elements of 'cheating' were not established.

2. Offence of Forgery under Sections 468 and 471 IPC:
Forgery under Section 468 IPC involves creating a false document with the intent to cheat, while Section 471 IPC involves using a forged document as genuine. The Court found no prima facie evidence of dishonest intent by the Appellants. The State Forensic Laboratory report was inconclusive regarding the alleged forgery, and no new material was found in the supplementary chargesheet. The Trial Magistrate's reliance on a private lab report was deemed unreliable without corroborative proof. Thus, the charges of forgery were not substantiated.

3. Violation of Section 12(b) of the Passports Act, 1967:
Section 12(b) of the Passports Act requires knowingly furnishing false information or suppressing material information to obtain a passport. The Court noted the State Forensic Laboratory's inconclusive report on the alleged forgery and the absence of a complaint from the Prescribed Authority. Therefore, the Court found no basis to invoke severe penalties under this section.

Conclusion and Directions:
The appeal was allowed, and the impugned judgments of the High Court and the Trial Magistrate were set aside. FIR No. 141/2010 and all proceedings arising therefrom were quashed. Respondent No. 2 was ordered to pay costs of Rs. 1,00,000/- to Appellant No. 1 within six weeks, failing which coercive measures for recovery were to be initiated by the Trial Magistrate.