Cheating and forgery require prima facie proof of dishonest inducement and a forged document; passport case quashed.

In a matrimonial-dispute prosecution over a minor child's passport, the SC held that cheating under Section 420 IPC was not prima facie made out because the record showed no dishonest inducement, parting of property or valuable security, or tangible loss. It further held that forgery and use of forged document under Sections 468 and 471 IPC were not established even prima facie, as the forensic material was inconclusive and the private opinion lacked corroboration. The ingredients of Section 12(b) of the Passports Act were likewise absent. The Court found the prosecution an abuse of process and quashed the FIR and consequential proceedings.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the alleged acts of obtaining the minor child's passport on the basis of the father's disputed signature prima facie constituted cheating under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860; (ii) Whether the material on record prima facie established forgery and use of forged document under Sections 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860; (iii) Whether the ingredients of Section 12(b) of the Passports Act, 1967 were made out.

Issue (i): Whether the alleged acts of obtaining the minor child's passport on the basis of the father's disputed signature prima facie constituted cheating under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Analysis: Cheating requires deception, dishonest inducement, delivery of property or valuable security, and dishonest intention at the inception. On the materials placed, the obtaining of a passport for the minor child did not result in any parting of property or valuable security by the complainant father, nor was any tangible loss, injury, or damage shown. The alleged conduct arose in the background of a matrimonial dispute and did not disclose the essential elements of deception and dishonest inducement.

Conclusion: The offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was not prima facie made out.

Issue (ii): Whether the material on record prima facie established forgery and use of forged document under Sections 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Analysis: Forgery requires fabrication of a false document with the intention that it be used for cheating, and Section 471 presupposes the use of such a forged document as genuine. The State forensic report was inconclusive, while the private laboratory opinion was treated as unsafe and unsupported by corroboration. No fresh material emerged in the course of further investigation, and the requisite dishonest intention and false document were not established even prima facie.

Conclusion: The offences under Sections 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 were not prima facie made out.

Issue (iii): Whether the ingredients of Section 12(b) of the Passports Act, 1967 were made out.

Analysis: Section 12(b) penalises knowingly furnishing false information or suppressing material information for obtaining a passport or travel document. In the absence of reliable proof of forgery or other corroborative material, and particularly when cognizance of such an offence is tied to the prescribed authority, the allegations did not justify invocation of the provision on conjecture.

Conclusion: The offence under Section 12(b) of the Passports Act, 1967 was not prima facie established.

Final Conclusion: The criminal prosecution lacked the basic ingredients of the alleged offences and continuing it would amount to an abuse of the process of law; the impugned orders were set aside and the FIR and all consequential proceedings were quashed.

Ratio Decidendi: In a prosecution arising from a matrimonial dispute, criminal charges for cheating, forgery, and passport-related falsehood cannot be sustained unless the record prima facie establishes the essential ingredients of those offences, including dishonest inducement, a forged false document, and reliable supporting material.

---