| Headnote |
Issue for Consideration: The crux of respondent No. 2’s allegations is that the appellants purportedly forged his signature on the passport application submitted to obtain the minor child’s passport. Whether the actions of the appellants prima facie constitute the offence of cheating u/s. 420 IPC; Whether there has been a prima facie case made out for forgery u/ss. 468 and 471 IPC; Whether there has been a violation of s.12(b) of the Passports Act, 1967; Whether in the absence of any new evidence found to substantiate the conclusions drawn by the investigating officer in the supplementary report, a Judicial Magistrate was compelled to take cognizance, as such a report lacked investigative rigour and failed to satisfy the requisites of s.173(8) Cr.P.C. Penal Code, 1860 – Cheating and Forgery – Appellants’ prayer to discharge them u/ss. 420, 468, 471, 120-B, 201 r/w. s.34 ofIPC was dismissed by the High Court – Propriety:Held: In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the appellant-wife seems to have breached the notion of mutual maritaltrust and unauthorizedly projected respondent no. 2’s consent in obtaining the passport for their minor child – It, however, remainsa question as to how such an act can be labelled as ‘deceitful’ – The motivations prompting either of the appellants to procure apassport for the minor child were not rooted in deceit – Furthermore, the grant of passport to the minor child did not confer any benefitupon the appellant-wife, nor did it result in any loss or damage to respondent no. 2 – In the same vein, appellant no. 2, beingthe father of the appellant-wife and assisting in securing the passport for the child, derived no direct or indirect benefit fromthis action – This grant can be best characterised as the minor child’s acquisition of property – Since the gain by the minor childis not at the cost of any loss, damage or injury to respondent no. 2, both the fundamental elements of ‘deceit’ and ‘damageor injury’, requisite for constituting the offence of cheating are conspicuously absent in this factual scenario – As far as forgeryis concerned, the offences of ‘forgery’ and ‘cheating’ intersect and converge, as the act of forgery is committed with the intentto deceive or cheat an individual – The determination of whether the appellants prepared a false document, by forging respondentno. 2’s signature, however, cannot be even prima facie ascertained at this juncture – Considering the primary ingredient of dishonestintention itself could not be established against the appellants, the offence of forgery too, has no legs to stand – The elementaryingredients of ‘cheating’ and ‘forgery’ are conspicuously missing – Thus, the continuation of the criminal proceedings against theappellants is nothing but an abuse of the process of law – The impugned judgments of the High Court and the trial Court are setaside. [Paras 16, 18, 20, 23, 34, 39]Passport Act, 1967 – s. 12(b) – Whether there was a violationof s.12(b) of the Passports Act, 1967:Held: Section 12(b) categorically states that, whoever knowingly furnishes any false information or suppresses any materialinformation, with a view to obtaining a passport or travel document under this Act or without lawful authority, alters or attempts toalter or causes to alter the entries made in a passport or travel document – As discernible from the language of the provision,what must be established is that the accused knowingly furnished false information or suppressed material information with theintent of obtaining a passport or travel document – In the instant case, it is crucial to consider that the State FSL report explicitlystated that the alleged forgery of respondent No. 2’s signatures on the passport application was inconclusive – Moreover, thecognizance of such like offence can be taken only at the instance of the Prescribed Authority – No complaint to that effect has beendisclosed against the Appellants – The Court cannot proceed on the basis of conjectures and surmises.[Paras 35, 36]Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s. 173 (8) – Respondent no. 2 invoked s.173(8) Cr.P.C. and sought further investigationof the offences u/ss. 468 and 471 IPC in the concerned FIR – Trial Magistrate allowed respondent no. 2’s prayer for furtherinvestigation – Pursuant thereto, the investigating agency filed a supplementary charge-sheet against the appellants – Propriety:Held: It is a matter of record that in the course of ‘further investigation’, no new material was unearthed by the investigatingagency – Instead, the supplementary charge-sheet relies upon the Truth Lab report dated 15.07.2013, obtained by respondent no. 2,which was already available when the original chargesheet was filed – The term ‘further investigation’ stipulated in s.173(8) Cr.P.C.obligates the officer-in-charge of the concerned police station to ‘obtain further evidence, oral or documentary’, and only then forwarda supplementary report regarding such evidence, in the prescribed form – The provision for submitting a supplementary report infersthat fresh oral or documentary evidence should be obtained rather than re-evaluating or reassessing the material already collectedand considered by the investigating agency while submitting the initial police report, known as the chargesheet u/s. 173(2) Cr.P.C.– In the absence of any new evidence found to substantiate the conclusions drawn by the investigating officer in the supplementaryreport, a Judicial Magistrate is not compelled to take cognizance, as such a report lacks investigative rigour and fails to satisfy therequisites of s.173(8) Cr.P.C. – The investigating agency acted mechanically, in purported compliance with the Trial Magistrate’sorder. [Paras 26 and 27] Penal Code, 1860 – Cheating – Components of:Penal Code, 1860 – Cheating – Components of:Held: It is paramount that in order to attract the provisions of s.420 IPC, the prosecution has to not only prove that the accused hascheated someone but also that by doing so, he has dishonestly induced the person who is cheated to deliver property – There are,thus, three components of this offence, i.e., (i) the deception of any person, (ii) fraudulently or dishonestly inducing that person todeliver any property to any person, and (iii) mens rea or dishonest intention of the accused at the time of making the inducement –There is no gainsaid that for the offence of cheating, fraudulent and dishonest intention must exist from the inception when thepromise or representation was made. [Para 11]Penal Code, 1860 – Forgery – Components of:Held: There are two primary components that need to be fulfilled in order to establish the offence of ‘forgery’, namely: (i) that theaccused has fabricated an instrument; and (ii) it was done with the intention that the forged document would be used for thepurpose of cheating – Simply put, the offence of forgery requires the preparation of a false document with the dishonest intentionof causing damage or injury. [Para 22] |
