A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

In the Supreme Court decision of Mariam Fasihuddin & Anr. v. State by Adugodi Police Station & Anr., the appellants, comprising the mother and maternal grandfather of a minor child, challenged criminal charges involving forgery and cheating filed against them by the child’s father (Respondent No. 2). The core of Respondent No. 2’s complaint lies in an accusation that his signature was forged on a passport application for the minor child, leading to criminal charges under Sections 420, 468, and 471 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), and a charge under Section 12(b) of the Passports Act, 1967. The appellants contested these charges, arguing that there was no malicious intent or gain, and that the passport application was prepared based on Respondent No. 2’s expressed consent. The court evaluated whether the actions constituted the offences as alleged. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the appellants, determining that the elements of cheating, deceit, or injury essential for these charges were not met and that the continuation of criminal proceedings would constitute an abuse of legal process.

Keywords: Cheating, Forgery, Criminal Proceedings, Marital Trust, Passport Act

B) CASE DETAILS

• Judgment Cause Title: Mariam Fasihuddin & Anr. v. State by Adugodi Police Station & Anr.
• Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 335 of 2024
• Judgment Date: 22 January 2024
• Court: Supreme Court of India
• Quorum: Justice Surya Kant and Justice Dipankar Datta
• Author: Justice Surya Kant
• Citation: [2024] 1 S.C.R. 623; 2024 INSC 49
• Legal Provisions Involved: Sections 420, 468, 471, 120-B, 201 r/w 34 of IPC; Section 12(b) of Passports Act, 1967
• Judgments Overruled by the Case: None mentioned
• Law Subjects: Criminal Law, Family Law

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

The case arose out of marital disputes between Appellant No. 1 (the wife) and Respondent No. 2 (the husband), who alleged that the appellants fraudulently used his signature to secure a passport for their minor child. The appellants argued that the passport application was filed in compliance with the directions and consent of Respondent No. 2, and the child’s passport was later seized by him without justification. These accusations led to criminal proceedings against the appellants for alleged forgery, cheating, and associated offenses under various IPC provisions. The appellants contested these charges, and following prolonged litigation, the case reached the Supreme Court, which examined whether the criminal charges were justified based on the facts and applicable legal principles.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

1. Appellant No. 1 and Respondent No. 2 were married in 2007, and a male child was born in 2008. Respondent No. 2, a resident in the United Kingdom, allegedly committed acts of mental and physical cruelty against Appellant No. 1, who filed a complaint against him.
2. In 2009, Appellant No. 1 applied for a passport for the minor child, purportedly with Respondent No. 2’s consent. This application included a sponsorship letter from Respondent No. 2’s relative, supporting Appellant No. 1’s stay in the UK with the child.
3. Subsequently, Respondent No. 2 lodged a complaint alleging forgery and misuse of his signature, leading to criminal proceedings under Sections 420, 468, 471 IPC and Section 12(b) of the Passports Act, 1967.
4. The lower courts dismissed the appellants’ plea for discharge, and the matter escalated to the Supreme Court.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

i. Whether the actions of the appellants constituted the offense of cheating under Section 420 IPC. ii. Whether there was a prima facie case for forgery under Sections 468 and 471 IPC. iii. Whether the appellants violated Section 12(b) of the Passports Act, 1967, by allegedly furnishing false information.

F) PETITIONER/APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

The counsels for the appellants argued that:

1. The complaint by Respondent No. 2 was a reaction to the domestic violence complaint filed by Appellant No. 1.
2. The passport application was filed with Respondent No. 2’s explicit consent, evidenced by his sponsorship arrangements in the UK, which included the passport details of the child.
3. The forensic analysis of the alleged forged signatures was inconclusive, rendering the allegations speculative and baseless.
4. The lack of new evidence in the supplementary charge sheet, required under Section 173(8) CrPC for further investigation, reflected an abuse of the legal process, as highlighted in Vinay Tyagi v. Irshad Ali.
5. The allegations failed to meet the essential components of cheating and forgery, and continuing the trial would be an undue burden on the appellants, contravening the Supreme Court’s guidelines in Krishna Chawla v. State of UP.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

The counsel for Respondent No. 2 argued:

1. The signatures on the passport application were forged as Respondent No. 2 was out of India at the relevant time.
2. The private agency’s forensic report, though obtained by Respondent No. 2, indicated a discrepancy in the signatures, supporting the forgery allegation.
3. The trial court was justified in ordering further investigation and dismissing the discharge application, as there was prima facie evidence warranting a full trial.

H) RELATED LEGAL PROVISIONS

• Section 420 IPC: Pertains to cheating and dishonest inducement to deliver property.
• Section 468 IPC: Punishes forgery intended to cheat.
• Section 471 IPC: Penalizes the fraudulent use of a forged document.
• Section 12(b) of Passports Act, 1967: Imposes penalties for knowingly providing false information or suppressing material information to obtain a passport.

I) JUDGEMENT

a. Ratio Decidendi

The court observed that the alleged actions did not meet the criteria for cheating or forgery. The relationship between the parties and the underlying marital discord reflected a misuse of the criminal process, and no evidence substantiated the requisite elements of dishonest or fraudulent intent. The court ruled in favor of the appellants, setting aside lower court decisions and quashing the charges.

b. Obiter Dicta

The court commented on the procedural lapses in the supplementary charge sheet, emphasizing the need for fresh evidence under Section 173(8) CrPC and criticizing reliance on inconclusive forensic reports from private agencies.

c. Guidelines

The court highlighted the importance of judicial discretion in distinguishing between civil and criminal disputes, especially in familial contexts where allegations may stem from underlying personal grievances.

J) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

This judgment underscores the Supreme Court’s approach to cases involving criminal charges rooted in familial disputes. The ruling reinforces the judiciary’s duty to prevent frivolous prosecutions and emphasizes that charges of cheating and forgery must be substantiated by clear evidence of deceit and damage. The case also stresses that procedural requirements, especially under Section 173(8) CrPC, must be rigorously observed, safeguarding individuals from undue criminal proceedings.

K) REFERENCES

Important Cases Referred:

1. Krishna Chawla v. State of UP (2021) 5 SCC 435
2. Vinay Tyagi v. Irshad Ali (2013) 5 SCC 762
3. Sushil Suri v. CBI (2011) 5 SCC 708
4. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) 1 SCC 248
5. K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2019) 1 SCC 1

Important Statutes Referred:

1. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Sections 420, 468, 471)
2. Passports Act, 1967 (Section 12(b))
3. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Section 173(8))