AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard. ADMIT. Taken up for final disposal forthwith by consent of the learned Counsels appearing for the respective parties.
The present application has been filed by the applicants invoking the inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, “Cr.P.C.”), for quashment of First Information Report (for short, “FIR") bearing Crime No.590 of 2022, dated 02.09.2022, registered with Frezarpura Police Station, Amravati, Dist. Amravati as well as charge-sheet bearing No.50 of 2023 in R.C.C. No.299 of 2023, pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Amravati, for the offences punishable under Sections 417 and 468 read with Section 34 the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, “IPC”).
The charge-sheet indicates applicant No.1 is the President and applicant No.2 is the Secretary of Chandravilla Charitable Trust, Amravati (for short, “the Trust”), registered under the Maharashtra Public Trust Act, 1950, bearing registration No.E-1192/Amravati. On 29.08.2022, on the application of one Shaikh Irfan Shaikh Gafar and Khushbu Suresh Akode, both resident of Dharni, Dist. Amravati, the said Trust issued a marriage certificate to the said couple, certifying their marriage which was solemnized on the same day at Amravati. Thereafter, on 02.09.2022, an FIR came to be lodged against the office bearers of the said Trust alleging that the person who has been shown as a Kazi, signed on the marriage certificate and claimed to have performed the marriage of Shaikh Irfan and Khushbu, is in fact a labourer. It is further alleged in the FIR that the said Trust has no authority to perform the marriage. Despite that, the said Trust has issued a forged marriage certificate to Shaikh Irfan and Khushbu. Therefore, the aforesaid offences came to be registered against the applicants as President and Secretary of the said Trust.
Heard Advocate Mr. Arnav Pansare holding for Mr. P.R. Agrawal, learned Counsel for the applicants and Mr. H.D. Futane, learned APP for the State with the assistance of Mr. Pankaj Navlani, learned Counsel for non-applicant No.2.
Mr. Arnav, learned Counsel for the applicants submitted that even if the allegations made in the FIR are taken at its face value, no offence whatsoever is made out against the applicants under Sections 417 and 468 of the IPC. He submitted that a complaint/FIR of cheating can only be filed by a person, who has been deceived by such cheating. The complainant/non-applicant No.2, in the present case, is a third person, who claims to be a social worker. The complainant has no business concerning himself with the marriage of Shaikh Irfan and Khushbu. Therefore, the complaint lodged by non-applicant No.2 is not maintainable.
To buttress his submissions, Mr. Arnav, learned Counsel for the applicants placed reliance on judgment passed by the Principal Seat of this Court in the case of Kamlakar Ratikant Bakare Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, Decided on 18.06.2010, in Criminal Revision Application No.382 of 2000. In para.6 of the said judgment, it has been held that since the offence of cheating can be complete only with establishment of damage or harm to the person deceived, which fact can be alleged and established only by such person, one of the essential ingredients of the offence would be lacking in the complaint filed by a stranger. Therefore, the complaint filed by such a person would not be maintainable and the general principle of criminal jurisprudence that anyone can set or put the criminal law into motion would not be applicable. The record of the present case shows that the original complainant was a total stranger to the alleged act of deception. He neither suffered any damage or sustained any loss in consequence of the alleged act of the applicants.
Mr. Arnav, learned Counsel for the applicants further placed reliance on judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Jit Vinayak Arolkar Vs. State of Goa and Others, reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 31, wherein in para.12 it has been held as under :-
“12….
23.When we say that execution of a sale deed by a person, purporting to convey a property which is not his, as his property, is not making a false document and therefore not forgery, we should not be understood as holding that such an act can never be a criminal offence.
If a person sells a property knowing that it does not belong to him, and thereby defrauds the person who purchased the property, the person defrauded, that is, the purchaser, may complain that the vendor committed the fraudulent act of cheating. But a third party who is not the purchaser under the deed may not be able to make such complaint.”
Lastly, Mr. Arnav submitted that no ingredients of forgery are made out against the applicants. According to him, there is no allegation against the applicants of making a false document. He submitted that the marriage certificate is issued by the said Trust under its own seal and signature and merely because the format of application form used for registration of marriage under the Maharashtra Regulation of Marriage Bureaus and Registration of Marriages Act, 1998 (for short, “Act of 1998”) is followed by them, it cannot be termed as an act of forgery. Therefore, he vehemently submitted that the continuation of the proceedings against the applicants is nothing but the abuse of process of court.
Per contra, learned APP for the State with the assistance of learned Counsel for non-applicant No.2, objected the application on the ground that despite having no authority under the Act of 1998, the said Trust has issued the said marriage certificate. According to him, the application form is a memorandum for registration of marriage used by the authority under the Act of 1998. He submitted that the said Trust is not registered under the Act of 1998. Therefore, it is not authorized to issue a marriage certificate in the format given under the Act of 1998. Thus, the marriage certificate issued by the said Trust is forged one. Hence, the application deserves to be rejected.
Having heard the learned Counsel for the respective parties and having gone through the record, it is revealed that the certificate of marriage issued by the said Trust certifies the fact that the marriage between Shaikh Irfan and Khushbu was solemnized on 29.08.2022 at Amravati. The said certificate is signed by the witnesses and one Shaikh Ibrahim Shaikh Raheman as a Kazi. The charge-sheet further reveals that the said marriage certificate is issued by the said Trust on the application made by Shaikh Irfan and Khushbu, the bridegroom and the bride, respectively. The application for registration of the marriage appears to be a proforma of the application as provided under the Act of 1998 for registration of marriages. The said application was submitted by the bridegroom and the bride under their signatures, informing solemnization of their marriage. The application form also includes the details of witnesses and the person, who performed the marriage with their signatures. The application depicts that one Shaikh Ibrahim Shaikh Raheman, resident of Bismillah Nagar, Amravati, as a Kazi, who allegedly performed the said marriage. The prosecution has come up with a case that the person who signed as a Kazi is in fact not a Kazi but a labourer and the said Trust, not being registered under the Act of 1998 and having no authority, issued the forged marriage certificate.
As stated above, the said marriage certificate has been issued on the basis of application form submitted by Shaikh Irfan and Khushbu. Now question remains whether the issuance of the said marriage certificate by the said Trust amounts to forgery for the purpose of cheating or not.
Analysis of Section 468 of the IPC is necessary in order to arrive at or proper conclusion. Section 468 of the IPC is reproduced as under :
“468.Forgery for purpose of cheating - Whoever commits forgery, intending that the document or electronic record forged shall be used for the purpose of cheating, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.”
The provision contemplates committing forgery with intention that the forged document shall be used for the purpose of cheating, such an act shall be punishable. Forgery means making of a false document with intent to cause damage or injury or support any claim. Making of false documents is defined under Section 464 of IPC, which reproduced as under :
“464.Making a false document — A person is said to make a false document or false electronic record—
First — Who dishonestly or fraudulently (a) makes, signs, seals or executes a document or part of a document;
(b)makes or transmits any electronic record or part of any electronic record;
(c)affixes any digital signature or any electronic record ;
(d)makes any mark denoting the execution of a document or the authenticity of the digital signature, with the intention of causing it to be believed that such document or part of a document, electronic record or digital signature was made, signed, sealed, executed, transmitted or affixed by or by the authority of a person by whom or by whose authority he knows that it was not made, signed, sealed or executed,
Secondly— Who, without lawful authority, dishonestly or fraudulently, by cancellation or otherwise, alters a document or an electronic record in any material part thereof, after it has been made, executed or affixed with digital signature either by himself or by any other person, whether such person be living or dead at the time of such alteration; or
Thirdly — Who dishonestly or fraudulently causes any person to sign, seal, execute or alter a document or an electronic record or to affix his digital signature on any electronic record knowing that such person by reason of unsoundness of mind or intoxication cannot, or that by reason of deception practised upon him, he does not know the contents of the document or the nature of the alteration.”
Thus, the primary ingredient to constitute an offence of forgery for the purpose of cheating, making a false document is sine quo non.
Indisputably, the said marriage certificate has been issued and signed by the applicant Nos.1 and 2, in the capacity of President and Secretary, respectively of the said Trust. The said marriage certificate is neither issued with intention to cause it to be believed that the said marriage certificate was made signed, sealed and executed by whom that it was not made signed, sealed, executed or affixed or a case of alteration of document or fraudulently causes any other person to sign, seal, execute or alter a document knowing that such person by reason of unsoundness of mind or intoxication cannot or that by reason of deception practices upon him or her. Therefore, the said document does not fall under any of the three categories mentioned under Section 464 of the IPC and cannot be said to be an act of making of a false document.
Merely because in the application form for registration of the marriage, Shaikh Ibrahim Shaikh Raheman falsely claimed himself as a Kazi, the applicants who did not make any false documents as defined under Section 464 of the IPC cannot liable for forgery. The said Trust has issued the marriage certificate on the basis of the application filed. It is settled law that charge of forgery cannot be imposed on a person who is not maker of the document. It will be relevant to refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Sheila Sebastian Vs. R. Jawaharaj and Another, [(2018) 7 SCC 581], wherein it is held that it is only the maker of a false document who is to be held liable for forgery. Para.25 of the said judgment is reproduced here :
“25.Keeping in view the strict interpretation of penal statute i.e. referring to rule of interpretation wherein natural inferences are preferred, we observe that a charge of forgery cannot be imposed on a person who is not the maker of the same. As held in plethora of cases, making of a document is different than causing it to be made. As Explanation 2 to Section 464 further clarifies that, for constituting an offence under Section 464 it is imperative that a false document is made and the accused person is the maker of the same, otherwise the accused person is not liable for the offence of forgery.
This takes me to the allegation of cheating. In order to make out a case under Section 417 of the IPC, ingredients of Section 415 of the IPC are to be fulfilled. Section 415 of the IPC is reproduced below :
“415.Cheating — Whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to “cheat”.”
Cheating means to deceive someone with dishonest or fraudulent intent and by that deception making him to deliver property or to allow someone to keep property, or to do/omit something he otherwise wouldn’t, which results in harm or likely harm to his body, mind, reputation or property. In simple words, it is intentional deception causing wrongful loss to one and wrongful gain to another.
Here, there are no allegations that the applicants have deceived anybody to deliver them any property or to do/to omit, which they otherwise would not have done. Therefore, the present case is bereft of the ingredients of cheating. Even, if it is presumed that the bridegroom and the bride are cheated, however, none of them came forward to lodge the complaint.
In the case of Kamlakar Bakare (Supra), it has been held that since the offence of cheating can be complete only with establishment of damage or harm to the person deceived, which fact can be alleged and established only by such person, one of the essential ingredients of the offence would be lacking in the complaint filed by a stranger. Therefore, the complaint filed by such a person would not be maintainable and the general principle of criminal jurisprudence that anyone can set or put the criminal law into motion would not be applicable.
The record of the present case shows that the original complainant is a total stranger to the alleged act of deception. He neither suffered any damage or sustained any loss in consequence of the alleged act of the applicants. Further, there is no allegation that somebody is deceived. The complainant is a third person who claims himself to be a social worker and appears to be aggrieved by the marriage of a Muslim boy with a Hindu girl and has lodged the written complaint to the Police and after investigation, the present FIR came to be registered.
At the most, the case in hand appears to be of issuance of a marriage certificate by the said Trust without being registered under the provisions of the Act of 1998. For that, a separate procedure is provided for launching the prosecution after receipt of sanction from sanctioning authority i.e. Registrar General, under the Act of 1998. Thus, the case in hand is bereft of ingredients of offence of cheating as well as forgery.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of State of Haryana and Others Vs. Bhajanlal and Others, reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 355, has laid down the principles of law relating to the exercise of extraordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India/Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash the FIR and it has been held that such power can be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. In para.102 of the judgment, the Supreme Court has laid down the broad principles where such power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India/Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. should be exercised, which is reproduced as under :
(1)where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused;
(2)where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code;
(3)where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused;
(4)where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code;
(5)where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused;
(6)where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party;
(7)where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.
Therefore, the case in hand falls within clause ‘1’ and ‘3 as provided in the case of Bhajanlal (Supra). A case is made out for exercising the inherent powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to prevent the abuse of the process of court and to secure the ends of justice.
In view of above discussion, the continuation of the proceedings against the applicants would be nothing but the abuse of process of court. Therefore, the application deserves to be allowed. Hence, the following order is passed.
ORDER
The application is allowed.
ii) The First Information Report bearing Crime No.590 of 2022, dated 02.09.2022, registered with Frezarpura Police Station, Amravati, Dist. Amravati and the charge-sheet bearing No.50 of 2023 in R.C.C. No.299 of 2023, pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Amravati, for the offences punishable under Sections 417 and 468 read with Section 34 the Indian Penal Code, 1860 stand quashed and set-aside qua the present applicants.
iii) Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.