Brief Facts
- The appellant (wife) and respondent (husband) were living in London, but the husband abandoned the wife, leading her to live with relatives. The wife later gave birth to a child in India and, following the husband’s instructions, applied for a passport for the child. Since, the husband was causing the physical and mental torture to the wife, she filed a criminal complaint against the husband and his family members before the Basavangudi Women Police Station, Bengaluru. The complaint was registered as Crime No. 68 / 2010, under Sections 346, 498A and 506, read with Section 34 IPC. Additionally, the complaint alleges that Respondent No. 2, on the pretext of arranging for their travel to the United Kingdom, took away
the minor child’s passport and jewellery items belonging to the Appellant – wife. - The husband then lodged a complaint alleging that the wife and her relatives forged his signature to obtain the passport. An FIR was filed under Sections 420, 468, 471, and 34 IPC. Initially the charge sheet was not filed under section Sections 468, 471 and 201 IPC and Section 12(b) of the Passport Act, 1967. However, in furtherance of the further investigation order of the Trial Court the Supplementary charge sheet was filed by the Police to add these offences.
- The Trial Court rejected the discharge application filed by the appellants. As a result, the Appellants filed a criminal revision before the High Court which was also dismissed. Subsequently, challenging the order of the High Court, the wife and her relatives filed a criminal appeal before the Supreme Court.
Issues
- 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?
Held
- Apex Court allowed the appeal and discharged the Appellants from the alleged offence. The Court opined that the Appellant wife is rather a victim and the Respondent No. 2 has been harassing the Appellant and her child. The Court opined that he underlying intent of obtaining the passport was, ironically, essential for the Appellant – wife and minor child to live together with Respondent No. 2, on whose instructions the passport was statedly obtained. Conversely, it is the actions of Respondent No. 2 that have seemingly deprived the minor child of his right to seek the care and company of his father, as the passport was allegedly taken away by Respondent No. 2 in a clandestine manner.
No offence under section 420 was made out
- It is well known that 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 the purview of Section 420 IPC. It must also be understood that a statement of fact is deemed ‘deceitful’ when it is false, and is knowingly or recklessly made with the intent that it shall be acted upon by another person, resulting in damage or loss. ‘Cheating’ therefore, generally involves a preceding deceitful act that dishonestly induces a person to deliver any property or any part of a valuable security, prompting the induced person to undertake the said act, which they would not have done but for the inducement.”
- The 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. The IPC itself defines the term ‘moveable property’ as, “intended to include corporeal property of every description, except land and things attached to the earth or permanently fastened to anything which is attached to the earth.” Whereas immoveable property is generally understood to mean land, benefits arising out of land and things attached or permanently fastened to the earth.
- 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.
Essential ingredients of forgery not fulfilled
- There are two primary components that need to be fulfilled in order to establish the offence of ‘forgery’, namely: (i) that the accused has fabricated an instrument; and (ii) it was done with the intention that the forged document would be used for the purpose of cheating. Simply put, the offence of forgery requires the preparation of a false document with the dishonest intention of causing damage or injury.”
- 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. Considering the primary ingredient of dishonest intention itself could not be established against the Appellants, the offence of forgery too, has no legs to stand. 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, we are unable to appreciate as to why the Appellants be subjected to the ordeal of trial.
Relevant Paragraph
- 12,13, 20 ,22, 23, 35, 36