Mere Cheating Will Not Attract S.420 IPC Offence; Accused Must Dishonestly Induce Cheated Person To Deliver Property : Supreme Court

Reversing the concurring findings of the High Court and the Trial Court, the Bench of Justices Surya Kant and KV Viswanathan, observed that to constitute an offence of cheating, merely committing a deceitful act is not sufficient unless the deceitful act dishonestly induced a person to deliver any property or any part of a valuable security, thereby resulting in loss or damage to the person.

“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 Court has quashed the criminal case filed by the husband against her wife and relatives (appellants) on the ground that the wife's act of using her husband's singature to seek the passport of her minor child for travel abroad doesn't amount to committing an offence of cheating and forgery.

The Court noted that there is a lack of dishonest intention on the part of the wife; further, no loss or damage has been suffered by the husband as the wife sought the passport only on the instructions of her husband.

"... in order 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" (Para 11)

Factual Background

In this matter the appellant no.1 and the respondent no.2 are wife and husband, respectively. The husband in working in London, and both decided to live in London. However, the husband thereafter abandoned her in London, and the wife started living in her relative's house. Subsequently, the wife gave birth to a child in India and sought a passport for her minor child on the instructions of the husband. Later, the husband lodged a complaint against the appellants i.e., wife and her relatives alleging that they had forged his signature to obtain a passport of a minor child.

The FIR was registere under Sections 420(Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property), 468 (forgery for the purpose of cheating) and 471 (Using as genuine a forged document) read with Section 34 of IPC.

The appellants filed an application seeking discharge before the trial court but was turned down. In the meanwhile, the trial court directed further investigation on the application of the husband, which resultantly allowed the police to submit the supplementary charge-sheet, thereby adding charges under Section 12(b) of the Passports Act, 1967 against the wife and her relatives.

Against the trial court's order of rejecting the discharge application, the appellants preferred a criminal revision before the High Court, resulting into dismissal of the same.

It is against the impugned order of the High Court, the wife and her relative preferred a criminal appeal before the Supreme Court.

Issue

The moot question arises before the court whether the act of the wife forging the signatures of her husband to seek a passport for her minor child constitute the offence of cheating and forgery under IPC?

Observation

Before answering to the abovementioned issue, the court discussed the contours of the offence of 'cheating'. The court noted that in order to attract the provision of Sec. 420 IPC, the prosecution has to not only prove the act of cheating but it needs to be also proved that the act of cheating resulted into an inducement to deliver the property resulting in to a loss or destruction of property to the person who have been induced to deliver such property.

“It is thus paramount that in order 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. There are, thus, 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.”

The court noted that the act of the wife to forge the sign of his husband to seek the passport for his minor child to travel abroad doesn't amount to cheating punishable under Section 420 IPC, due to the absence of a deceitful act that resulted in a loss or damage of property to a husband.

“Since the gain by the minor child is not at the cost of any loss, damage or injury to Respondent No. 2 (husband), both the fundamental elements of 'deceit' and 'damage or injury', requisite for constituting the offence of cheating are conspicuously absent in this factual scenario.”

Further, the court noted that the act of the appellants also doesn't amount to forgery. According to court, the offence of forgery requires the preparation of a false document with the dishonest intention of causing damage or injury.

The court noted that no dishonest intention was made out against the appellants with the following observations:

“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.”

Additionally, the court observed that in the absence of dishonest intention on the part of the appellants, the act of forging the documents doesn't arise.

“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.”

The court has also discharged the appellants for committing an offence under Section 12(b) of the Passports Act, 1967 that penalizes a person for the act of willfully furnishing the wrong information to obtain a passport or travel document under this Act or without lawful authority, altering 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 the intent of obtaining a passport or travel document. 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.”

In light of the aforesaid observations, the court set-aside the impugned judgment/order passed by the High Court in a criminal revision and thereby the quashed the pending criminal case against the Appellants with a cost of Rs. 1,00,000/- on the husband.

“Consequently, the appeal is allowed; 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. As a sequel thereto, the FIR No. 141 / 2010 registered at Police Station Adugodi, Bengaluru under Sections 420, 468, 471 read with Section 34 IPC, lodged by Respondent No. 2 against the Appellants and all the proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed.”

Case Details:

Mariam Fasihuddin & Anr. versus State by Adugodi Police Station & Anr.

Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 53