Supreme Court Quashes Cheating and Forgery Charges Against Shiromani Akali Dal Leaders: Sukhbir Singh Badal vs. Balwant Singh Khera (2023)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 28 April 2023

Citation: 2023 INSC 386

Judges: M.R. Shah, J. and C.T. Ravikumar, J.

Can a political party be accused of cheating and forgery for allegedly making a false declaration of secularism while registering with the Election Commission of India? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question, quashing criminal proceedings against leaders of the Shiromani Akali Dal (Badal). The court held that the allegations did not constitute the offenses of cheating or forgery under the Indian Penal Code. This judgment clarifies the scope of these offenses in the context of political party registration. The judgment was delivered by a bench of Justices M.R. Shah and C.T. Ravikumar.

Case Background

The case originated from a private complaint filed in 2009 by Balwant Singh Khera against several leaders of the Shiromani Akali Dal (SAD), including Shri Sukhbir Singh Badal, Shri Sukhdev Singh Dhindsa, Shri Surinder Singh Shinda and Dr. Daljit Singh Cheema. The complaint alleged that the SAD had submitted a false affidavit to the Election Commission of India (ECI) in 1989, declaring that the party adhered to secular principles. This declaration, the complainant argued, was in conflict with the party’s constitution submitted to the Gurudwara Election Commission (GEC), which restricted membership to Sikhs. The complainant contended that the SAD, by engaging in religious activities while claiming secularism, had no right to function as a political party.

Initially, Shri Parkash Singh Badal was not named as an accused. The trial court conducted an inquiry, and after several applications for amendments and revisions, the court summoned the appellants, including Shri Parkash Singh Badal, to face trial for offenses under Sections 420, 465, 466, 467, 468, 471 read with 120B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The appellants then approached the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, seeking to quash the summoning order, but the High Court dismissed their plea, leading to the present appeal before the Supreme Court.

Timeline

Arguments

Appellants’ Arguments:

• The complaint was filed belatedly, 20 years after the party’s registration and after the complainant’s failed attempt to cancel the party’s registration.
• The requirement under Section 29-A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, only mandates that the party declare its adherence to secularism, not amend its constitution.
• The party’s constitution, which restricts membership to Sikhs for the Shiromani Gurudwara Prabandhak Committee (SGPC) elections, does not contradict the principle of secularism. The management of a religious place is a secular act.
• Being religious does not preclude a party from being secular. The party’s membership is open to all.
• No offense of cheating or forgery was made out. There was no specific false document created or produced. The party submitted a memorandum, not its constitution, to the ECI.
• Shri Parkash Singh Badal was not an accused in the original complaint and was summoned without a mandatory inquiry under Section 202 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.).
• The High Court failed to consider whether the complaint disclosed the commission of the alleged offenses.

Respondents’ Arguments:

• The case involves serious fraud, forgery, and cheating to obtain the party’s registration.
• The party submitted a fabricated document to the ECI, falsely claiming compliance with Section 29-A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
• Shri Parkash Singh Badal instructed the filing of the false document.
• The party submitted a different constitution to the GEC, showing a contradiction in their stance on secularism.
• The allegations in the complaint disclose cognizable offenses.
• The Magistrate is empowered to summon individuals based on evidence collected during the inquiry, even if they were not initially named in the complaint.
• The false claim of secularism constitutes cheating under Section 415/420 IPC, and the submission of a fabricated document constitutes forgery.

Submissions of Parties

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following key issues:

1. Whether the allegations in the complaint constitute the offenses of cheating and forgery under the Indian Penal Code.
2. Whether the summoning of Shri Parkash Singh Badal was valid, considering he was not initially named in the complaint and no inquiry was conducted under Section 202 Cr.P.C.
3. Whether the High Court erred in dismissing the revision application and refusing to quash the criminal proceedings.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Supreme Court cited Sardar Sarup Singh and Ors. Vs. State of Punjab and Ors., AIR 1959 SC 860* and Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras Vs. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Sri Shirur Mutt, 1954 SCR 1005* to support the view that management of a religious place is a secular act.
• The Supreme Court cited S.R. Bommai and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors., (1994) 3 SCC 1* to support the view that being religious is not antithetical to secularism.
• The Supreme Court cited Mohammed Ibrahim and Ors. Vs. State of Bihar and Anr., (2009) 8 SCC 751* to define forgery and making a false document, holding that no false document was made in this case.
• The Supreme Court referred to Sections 415, 420, 463, 464, 465, 466, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, explaining the ingredients of each offense, and held that none of the ingredients were met in this case.
• The Supreme Court referred to Section 29-A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 to clarify the requirement of political party registration.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the lack of evidence supporting the charges of cheating and forgery. The court emphasized that the ingredients of these offenses were not met based on the facts and allegations presented. The court also considered the delay in filing the complaint, although this was not the primary reason for its decision. The court focused on the legal definitions of cheating and forgery, finding that the actions of the appellants did not fall within these definitions.

Logical Reasoning:

The court considered the arguments that the party made a false claim of secularism and submitted a fabricated document. However, it rejected these arguments, emphasizing that making a false claim is distinct from creating a false document. The court also noted that the party submitted a memorandum, not its constitution, to the ECI, and that the management of a religious place is a secular act. The court’s reasoning was based on a strict interpretation of the legal definitions of cheating and forgery and a careful examination of the facts presented.

The Supreme Court did not discuss any alternative interpretations. The court’s decision was unanimous, with both judges agreeing that the ingredients of the offenses were not met. The court did not introduce any new doctrines or legal principles, but rather applied existing legal definitions to the facts of the case.

The Supreme Court quashed the summoning order and the criminal proceedings against the appellants. The court held that the allegations in the complaint did not constitute the offenses for which the appellants were summoned. This decision emphasizes the importance of meeting the specific legal requirements for offenses like cheating and forgery.

“Looking to the averments and allegations in the complaint, it is not appreciable at all, how the appellants are alleged to have committed the offence of cheating. The ingredients for the offence of cheating are not at all satisfied.”

“In the present case, no false document has been produced. What was produced was the Memorandum and no other documents were produced.”

“Under the circumstances to continue the criminal proceedings against the appellants – accused arising out of the complaint and to face the trial by the accused as per the summoning order is nothing but an abuse of process of law and court and this is a fit case to quash the entire criminal proceedings arising out of the complaint filed by the respondent No. 1 including the summoning order passed by the learned Trial Court.”

Key Takeaways

• A political party cannot be charged with cheating or forgery simply for making a declaration of secularism that is later disputed.
• The legal definitions of cheating and forgery require specific elements, such as dishonest inducement to deliver property and the creation of a false document, respectively.
• The management of a religious place is considered a secular act, and a party can be religious and secular in outlook.
• Courts should carefully examine the ingredients of offenses before issuing summoning orders.
• A delay in filing a complaint can be a factor in considering the validity of the charges.

Directions

The Supreme Court quashed the summoning order passed by the Trial Court dated 04.11.2019 and the criminal proceedings arising from the complaint. The Court clarified that its decision was based on the lack of evidence for the offenses of cheating and forgery and did not affect the pending proceedings before the High Court of Delhi regarding the order passed by the ECI.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a political party cannot be charged with cheating or forgery for merely making a declaration of secularism that is later disputed. The court clarified that the legal definitions of cheating and forgery require specific elements, and these elements were not met in the present case. This judgment reinforces the importance of strict adherence to legal definitions and the need for concrete evidence to support criminal charges. There was no specific change in the previous position of law, but the judgment clarifies the application of existing laws to the specific context of political party registration.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court of India quashed the criminal proceedings against leaders of the Shiromani Akali Dal (Badal), holding that the allegations of cheating and forgery were not substantiated. The court emphasized the need for specific evidence and adherence to legal definitions when bringing criminal charges, particularly in cases involving political parties and declarations of secularism. This judgment provides clarity on the application of the Indian Penal Code in such contexts and underscores the importance of a strict interpretation of legal provisions.