The Honâble Supreme Court in the case Munna Prasad Verma v. State of U.P. & Anr. quashed and set aside the criminal proceedings against the appellants and stated that it is an abuse of the process of law.
The facts of the case are that Brijendra Nath Mishra obtained B.Ed. degree from an affiliated college of Gorakhpur University, Madan Mohan Malviya College, Deoria. After the death of his father, he called for a compassionate appointment and based on his education record he was eligible and hence was selected by the Selection Committee (appellants). Brijendra Nath Mishra was selected by the committee on the compassionate ground under the dying harness rules.
The complainant (respondent) lodged FIR under sections 419, 420, 467,471 IPC against the selection committee and Brijendra Nath Mishra, who according to the complainant, has presented a forged marksheet of B.Ed. for compassionate appointment and the committee members conspired for the appointment and they were aware of the fact that the documents are forged.
After the complaint was filed, an investigation began and a final report was filed by the police but the Magistrate further gave directions for investigation. When the third round of investigation was completed a final report was filed again. On the request of the complainant, the investigating officer was changed and then finally a chargesheet was filed incriminating the appellants (member of the selection committee) and other persons for offences under section 419, 420, 467,468, 471 and 120-B IPC, cognizance was taken by the learned magistrate by an order.
The order was challenged by the appellants by filing a petition for quashing the cognizance against them under section 482 CrPC. The other two members of the selection committee against whom cognizance was taken have preferred for a special leave petition before the court but during the pendency of the proceedings, unfortunately, both died and the court by a separate order dismissed their proceeding. The case Concerning with forged documents presented by Brijendra Nath Mishra for seeking a compassionate appointment is facing trial and that would be dealt according to the procedure established by law.
As far as the matter related to assistance by the selection committee, as the complainant has alleged, no prima facie evidence has been found which incriminates the appellants and shows that the appellants helped in fabricating or creating the forged document. The present members of the Selection Committee who relied on the documents without verification believed them to be genuine and recommended for the compassionate appointment which does not mean that they helped in the fabrication of documents or were aware of the forged document. Thus, the members of the committee are not in any manner involved in the case.
“The learned Magistrate has taken cognizance and issued summons against them by an Order dated 4th August 2009 in the instant proceedings, which, in our view, would be nothing but a clear abuse of the process of law. Thus, the appeals stand allowed and the criminal proceedings arising from Case Crime No. 128 of 2002 qua the appellants are quashed and set aside.”
The appeals are set aside but the proceeding by the learned Magistrate against Brijendra Nath Mishra will continue in accordance with law and the court also held that if there is any pending applications regarding the case it shall also be disposed of.
The case of M.P. Ramani Vs. State of Kerala & Anr. deals mainly with the forgery of a cheque leaf. Dissatisfied with the order of the Kerala High Court, the petitioner filed an appeal which was ultimately allowed.
FACTS
The appellant, as a de facto complainant, filed a complaint alleging that a cheque from Canara Bank, Payyanur Branch, had been dishonestly acquired and forged with the appellantâs signature for drawing a number of Rs. 3,50,000. This cheque was presented in the Federal Bank, Payyanur Branch, through the account that was maintained by the respondent. It is also alleged that the cheque that was allotted to the appellant by Canara Bank was over 30 years old and was not in use as a new MCRI number was awaited. Based on the above allegations, a complaint was filed under Sections 420, 46, and 472 of the Indian Penal Code. Post the investigations, the final report was filed before the High Court under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, wherein the respondent was accused of committing the alleged crimes. A petition was filed under Section 482 before the High Court by the appellant for the quashing of the final report.
The allegations against the respondent were fraudulent procurement of the cheque, forgery, and, therein, attempting to obtain the amount of Rs. 3,50,000 from the appellant. The final report for the following was filed under Sections 420, 465, 468, and 472 of the Indian Penal Code.
However, on inquiry, it was revealed that the cheque belonged to the de facto complainant and contained his very own signature. The allegation in the final report was that the respondent managed to threaten the complainant by using the cheque. Due to the absence of this issue raised by the complainant, the aforementioned final report was quashed, stating that it was an abuse of the court process.
CONTENTIONS OF PARTIES
Aggrieved by this order, the appellant appeared before the High Court âassailing the said order.â
The Counsels of both parties scrutinized the appeal papers that indicated the specific allegations made by the appellant that the 30-year-old cheque leaf that was said to have not been in use that the respondent procured in order to extract a sum of Rs. 3,50,000 from the appellant. Based on these, the final report was submitted under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This revealed that the investigating officer cited 15 witnesses that led the charge against the respondent with the intention to commit the crime. Therefore, his actions can be considered a punishable offense under Sections 465, 468, and 472 of the IPC. It was noted that the order of the Court was brief and cryptic; the Court had neither paid attention to the facts of the case nor the nature of the allegations. The only observation noted was of the ownership of the cheque leaf being that of the appellant but was wrongful in the possession of the respondent and that the instrument contained the appellantâs signature, and that there was no allegation of threat.
COURT’S DECISION
The High Court decided to quash the final report as they deemed it suitable to restore the petition and enable the parties to put forward their contentions to facilitate the High Court to take a comprehensive decision after taking all matters of fact and law into consideration. This enables a fresh start and decision, and the contentions are left open to both parties. The appeal was allowed, and all pending applications regarding this matter stood disposed off.
In the case of Aman Kumar Bharadwaj v. state of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. the High Court of Himachal Pradesh quashed the criminal case filed against a journalist who was checking the system of generating e-pass during COVID-19.
The Zee Media House Journalist Abhishek Kumar Bharadwaj was booked under sections 419 (cheating by personation), 468(forgery for purpose of cheating ), and 471 (using as genuine a forged document or electronic record ) of the Indian Penal Code. He was also booed under section 66(D) of the information and technology Act, 2000 and section 54 of the Disaster Management Act, 2005.
The state of Himachal Pradesh, on 25th April 2021, issued certain directions regarding the inter-state movement to Himanchal Pradesh. This was to be monitored through the process of registration of an e-pass on the e-pass web portal. On having doubts about the increased movement in the state even after strict restrictions, the petitioner being a responsible journalist decided to investigate and check the system of generating e-passes. The petitioner filled out two online registration forms for the issuance of two e-passes for entering the state of Himachal Pradesh without mentioning any valid reason. These two e â passes were registered in the names of two renowned personalities i.e., Amitabh Bachchan and Donald Trump. He uploaded random vehicle details and his own Aadhar card details while doing so. Even after filling incorrect details, the passes were issued to him which assured him that the details are not being verified and the authorities are issuing passes in a mechanical manner.
The investigation was carried out by him with the permission of the Bureau Chief. Upon completion of the investigation, the journalist brought it to the notice of the senior authorities of the state including a cabinet minister and Director General of Police of Himachal Pradesh. However, he received no response and telecasted it on the news channel.
An FIR was registered against Aman Bharadwaj by the state as he used fake registration numbers of vehicles by mentioning his own mobile number and Aadhar card number as Identity proof for generating fake and forged documents. It was also alleged he caused the spread of false propaganda about the state allowing the entry of anyone and everyone in the state, as the state had put barriers and was checking the entry of each car.
The court observed the ingredients of the offenses under which the FIR was filed and came to the conclusion that the acts of Aman Bhardwaj do not fall within the definition of the alleged offenses.
“…Petitioner was having doubt about proper working of verification system of State at the time of registration of online request for e-pass and generation of e-passes. He was not having any other via-media to check and verify the system except submitting a misleading request. It is evident that in entire episode intention of petitioner was neither dishonest nor fraudulent as immediately after generation of epasses, which otherwise could not have been used by any person, petitioner brought it to the notice of concerned authorities and persons…”
Aman Bharadwaj was neither fraudulent nor dishonest as after the issuance of e-passes based on the fake documents, he brought it to the concerned authorities. He never intended to use those passes for entering Himachal Pradesh. There is no sufficient material for registration of the offenses and a prima facie case cannot be made against the petitioner. In light of the above, the petition was allowed and the FIR was quashed.
Both Cheating and Forgery are considered as crimes against the property of a person. They might sound similar to a layman but they are not the same. But, before highlighting the differences, it is important to analyse the offences of cheating and forgery independently.
Cheating under the Indian Penal Code
Cheating is defined in Section 415, Chapter XVII of The IPC as â âWhoever, by deceiving a person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property to a person, or to consent that a personshall retain any property, or intentionally induces that person so deceived to try and do or omit to do anything which he wouldn’t do or omit if he were no so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is probably going to cause damage or harm to a person in body, mind, reputation or property, is claimed to âcheatâ.â To hold an individual guilty of cheating as defined under section 415 of the IPC, it’s necessary to point out that he had the fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of creating the promise with an intention to retain the property. In other words, section 415 requires deception of a person
1. Inducing that person to:
(i) To deliver any property to a person, or (ii) To consent that a person shall retain any property
intentionally inducing that person to try and do or omit to do anything which he wouldn’t do or omit if weren’t so deceived and which act or omission causes or is probably going to cause damage or harm to a person, anybodyâs mind, reputation or property.
The second class of acts set forth within the section is that the doing or omitting to do anything which the person deceived wouldn’t do or omit to do if he weren’t so deceived. Within the first-class of cases, the inducing must be fraudulent or dishonest. With the second class of acts, the inducing must be intentional but not fraudulent or dishonest â Hira Lal Hari Lal Bhagwati v. CBI, 2003 (5) SCC 257
The ingredients of an offence of cheating are:
(i) There should be fraudulent or dishonest inducement of an individual by deceiving him, (ii) (a) the person who is deceived should be induced to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that a person shall retain any property; or (b) the person so deceived should be intentionally induced to try and do or omit to do anything which he wouldn’t do or omit if he weren’t so deceived; (iii) In cases under (ii)(b), the act or omission should be one which causes or is probably going to cause damage or harm to the person induced in body, mind, reputation or property â S.W. Palanitkar v. State of Bihar, (2002) 1 SCC 241.
The following illustrations will help in further understanding the nuances of this section.
(a) A, falsely pretends to be within the government officials, and intentionally deceives Z, and thus dishonestly induces Z to let him wear credit goods that he doesn’t mean to pay. A, cheats.
(b) A, by putting a counterfeit mark on a piece of writing, intentionally deceives Z into a belief that this text was made by a particular celebrated manufacturer, and thus dishonestly induces Z to shop for and buy the article. A, cheats.
(c) A, intentionally deceives Z into a belief that he means to deliver to Z a particular quantity of indigo which he doesn’t intend to shall deliver, and thereby dishonestly induces Z to advance money upon reliance of such delivery. A, cheats; but if A, at the time of obtaining the cash, intends to deliver the indigo, and afterwards breaks his contract and doesn’t deliver it, he doesn’t cheat, but is liable only to legal action for breach of contract.
Forgery under the Indian Penal Code (IPC)
Forgery is defined in Section 463, Chapter XVIII of The IPC as â âWhoever makes any false document or false electronic record or a part of a document or electronic record, with intent to cause damage or injury, to the general public or a person, or to support any claim or title, or to cause a person to give up property, or to enter into any express or implied contract, or with intent to commit fraud or that fraud could also be committed, commits forgery.â
The Supreme Court within the case of Sheila Sebastian v. R. Jawaharaj, (2018) 7 SCC 581 had observed that Section 464 defines one among the ingredients of forgery i.e. making of a false document and so as to sustain a conviction under Section 465 (Punishment for Forgery), first it’s to be proved that forgery was committed under Section 463, implying that ingredients under Section 464 should even be satisfied.
The Ingredients of an offence of Forgery are:
Section 464 explains what constitutes a false document. As per the section, an individual is claimed to form false document or false electronic record â
1.First. â Who dishonestly or fraudulently â
a. Makes, signs, seals or executes a document or a part of a document;
b. Makes or transmits any electronic record or a part of any electronic record;
c. Attaches any electronic signature on any electronic record;
d. Makes nay mark denoting the execution of a document or the authenticity of the electronic signature,
With the intent of causing to be believed that such document or a part of a document, electronic record or electronic signature was made, signed, sealed, executed, transmitted or affixed by or by the authority of an individual by whom or by whose authority he knows that it had not been made, signed, sealed, executed or affixed; or
Secondly. â Whoever, in the absence of lawful authority, by dishonesty or fraud, by cancellation or otherwise, alters a document or an electronic record in any material part thereof, after it’s been made, executed or affixed with electronic signature either by himself or the other person, whether such person be living or dead at the time of such alteration; or
Thirdly. â Who by dishonest or fraudulent intentions causes a person to sign, seal, perform or alter a document or an electronic record or to affix his electronic signature on any electronic record being aware of the fact that such person due to his unsoundness of mind or intoxication cannot, or that by reason of deception practised upon him, he doesn’t know the contents of the document or electronic record or the character of the alteration.
2. Fraud. â The Supreme Court within the case of India Bank v. Satyam Fibres (India) Pvt. Ltd., (1996) 5 SCC 550 had held that forgery is that the false making of any written instrument for the aim of fraud or deceit. So, fraud is an important ingredient of forgery.
The following examples will help in further understanding the offence of Forgery.
(a) A, signs his own name to a bill of exchange, intending that it’s going to be believed that the bill was drawn by another person of an equivalent name. A has committed forgery.
(b) A, draws a bill of exchange upon a fictitious person, and fraudulently accepts the bill within the name of such a fictitious person with the intent to barter it. A commits forgery.
Difference between Cheating and Forgery
From the above analysis, we get the subsequent differences between the offences of Cheating and Forgery.
Cheating is roofed under Section 415-420 of the IPC. Forgery is roofed under Section 463-477 of the IPC.
Cheating carries a punishment of seven years and/or fine. Forgery carries a punishment of two years and/or fine
Cheating could also be caused by oral statements or documents. Forgery is usually caused on a document
In cheating, the wrong-doer deceives an individual and obtains property or other profit whereas forgery could also be committed by drawing a sum of cash from a checking account and other properties, to say it as of right basing it upon the concocted or forged documents
Cheating may cause damage or harm to the body, mind, reputation or property. Forgery may cause damage or harm to the title deeds and property only
The offence of cheating is related to the âoffences against propertyâ while forgery is an offence associated with âdocuments and property marksâ
Cheating relates to entire property while forgery relates to the title of the property and is indirectly related to property
Cheating can be said to be committed with or without the awareness of the owner of the property that he is being cheated, by inducing the owner of the property, who delivers the property to accused. Forgery is said to be committed without the owner being aware
Cheating is considered to be a wide offence which incorporates forgery under its ambit while forgery is often committed for the aim of cheating
The author, Nadeem Siddiqui, is a 2nd-year student of B.L.S. L.L.B. at Government Law College, Mumbai, Maharashtra. He is currently interning withLexpeeps.in.
