2009 (9) TMI 922 - SC - Indian Laws

High Court overturns order on several IPC offenses; charges under sections 420, 467, 471, 504 quashed.

The appeal was partially allowed. The High Court's order was set aside, and the Sub-Divisional Magistrate's order dated 14.12.2005 was quashed regarding ... Whether the material on record prima facie constitutes any offences against the accused? Whether if the allegations made in the complaint and FIR, even if accepted to be true in entirety did not disclose the ingredients of any offence of forgery (sections 467 and 471) or cheating (section 420) or insult (section 504) or wrongful restraint (section 341) or causing hurt (section 323) and there was no other material to show any offence and therefore, their application ought to have been accepted? Issues Involved:1. Whether the complaint and FIR disclose the ingredients of offences under sections 420, 467, 471, and 504 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).2. Whether the execution of sale deeds by the first accused constitutes forgery under sections 467 and 471 IPC.3. Whether the actions of the accused amount to cheating under section 420 IPC.4. Whether the allegations amount to an intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace under section 504 IPC.5. Whether the complaint shows the ingredients of wrongful restraint under section 341 IPC and causing hurt under section 323 IPC.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Disclosure of Offences under Sections 420, 467, 471, and 504 IPC:The Court examined whether the material on record prima facie constitutes any offences against the accused. It was contended that the allegations, even if accepted to be true, did not disclose the ingredients of forgery (sections 467 and 471), cheating (section 420), insult (section 504), or wrongful restraint (section 341) or causing hurt (section 323).2. Execution of Sale Deeds and Forgery (Sections 467 and 471 IPC):The Court analyzed sections 467 and 471 IPC, which pertain to forgery and the use of forged documents. Section 467 deals with forging a document purporting to be a valuable security, while section 471 pertains to using a forged document as genuine. The term 'forgery' is defined under section 463, and making a false document is defined under section 464 IPC. The Court concluded that the sale deeds executed by the first accused did not constitute making a false document as defined under section 464 IPC. Therefore, no forgery occurred, and sections 467 and 471 IPC were not attracted.3. Cheating (Section 420 IPC):The essential ingredients of cheating include deception, fraudulent or dishonest inducement, and resulting damage or harm. The Court found that the complaint did not allege that the accused tried to deceive the complainant by making a false representation or fraudulent inducement. The complainant did not allege that the first accused pretended to be the complainant while executing the sale deeds. Therefore, the ingredients of cheating under section 415 IPC were not found, and section 420 IPC was not applicable.4. Intentional Insult with Intent to Provoke Breach of Peace (Section 504 IPC):Section 504 IPC refers to intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace. The Court noted that the statement attributed to the accused, even if true, was merely a statement about the consequence of executing the sale deeds and did not amount to an 'insult with intent to provoke breach of peace.' Thus, section 504 IPC was not applicable.5. Wrongful Restraint (Section 341 IPC) and Causing Hurt (Section 323 IPC):The Court concluded that the averments in the complaint, if assumed to be true, may technically show the ingredients of the offences of wrongful restraint under section 341 IPC and causing hurt under section 323 IPC.Conclusion:The appeal was allowed in part. The order of the High Court was set aside, and the order dated 14.12.2005 of the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate was quashed insofar as offences under sections 420, 467, 471, and 504 IPC. Consequently, the charges framed under those sections were also quashed. The order dated 14.12.2005 and the charges insofar as the offences under sections 323 and 341 IPC were left undisturbed. The appeal was allowed in part accordingly.