The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India held 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.
On the issue of forgery, the Top Court held that 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.
Brief Facts:
The Appellant No. 1 – wife, and Respondent No. 2 – husband, got married in 2007. Respondent No. 2 statedly assured the Appellant–wife that post marriage they would reside together in London. However, Respondent No. 2 allegedly abandoned her and forcefully confined her to the residence of her sister-in-law. The Appellant–wife gave birth to a male child.
Appellant–wife sought to obtain a passport for the minor child based allegedly upon Respondent No. 2’s instructions.However, as per the allegations of the Appellants, the duration of marriage with Respondent No. 2 was fraught with physical and mental torture solely on account of Respondent No. 2’s relentless financial demands.
Therefore, the Appellants registered a complaint against Respondent No.2 under Sections 346, 498A, and 506, read with Section 34 IPC. Respondent No.2 also lodged a complaint, alleging that the Appellants had forged his signatures on the minor child’s passport application. This complaint was registered as FIR under Sections 420, 468, and 471 read with Section 34 IPC.
Contentions of the Appellants:
It was argued that Respondent No. 2’s complaint pertaining to the forgery of the passport application was merely a counterblast to the Appellant – wife’s complaint alleging cruelty against him.
Contentions of the Respondent:
It was argued that state FSL Report should have been given utmost weightage in comparison to a paid opinion so as to uphold the fairness and impartiality of the investigation.
Observations of the Court:
The Court opined that to attract the provisions of Section 420 IPC, the prosecution has to not only prove that the accused has cheated someone but also that by doing so, he has dishonestly induced the person who is cheated to deliver property. It was ruled that there are three components of this offence, i.e., (i) the deception of any person, (ii) fraudulently or dishonestly inducing that person to deliver any property to any person, and (iii) mens rea or dishonest intention of the accused at the time of making the inducement.
It was held 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.
The Court observed that the motivations prompting either of the Appellants to procure a passport for the minor child were not rooted in deceit. Furthermore, the grant of a passport to the minor child did not confer any benefit upon the Appellant-wife, nor did it result in any loss or damage to Respondent No. 2.
On the issue of forgery, the Court held that 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.
Considering the primary ingredient of dishonest intention itself could not be established against the Appellants, the offense of forgery too, was not made out. On the issue of submission of the supplementary chargesheet, the Court ruled that in the absence of any new evidence found to substantiate the conclusions drawn by the investigating officer in the supplementary report, a Judicial Magistrate is not compelled to take cognizance.
The decision of the Court:
Based on the aforementioned reasons and findings, the Apex Court accordingly allowed the appeal.
Case Title: Mariam Fasihuddin & Anr. v State by Adugodi Police Station & Anr.
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Surya Kant and Hon’ble Justice Dipankar Datta
Citation: 2024 Latest Caselaw 45 SC
Advocate for the Appellant: Adv. Mr. Ranbir Singh Yadav
Advocate for the Respondents: Adv. Mr. Narender Hooda
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source : https://unsplash.com/s/photos/father-and-son