Supreme Court Quashes Cheating and Forgery Charges in Matrimonial Dispute: Mariam Fasihuddin vs. State (2024)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 22 January 2024

Citation: 2024 INSC 49

Judges: Surya Kant, J., Dipankar Datta, J.

Can a spouse be prosecuted for cheating and forgery for allegedly forging the other spouse’s signature on a child’s passport application? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case involving a marital dispute. The court examined whether the actions of a wife and her father, who were accused of forging the husband’s signature to obtain a passport for their minor child, constituted the offenses of cheating and forgery. The Supreme Court bench, comprising Justices Surya Kant and Dipankar Datta, delivered the judgment, with Justice Surya Kant authoring the opinion.

Case Background

The case revolves around a marital dispute between Mariam Fasihuddin (Appellant No. 1) and her husband (Respondent No. 2). They married on August 2, 2007, in Bengaluru. The husband, who was in the software business in the UK, allegedly promised that they would reside together in London post-marriage. However, after the wife joined him in London, she was allegedly abandoned and confined to her sister-in-law’s residence. The wife was then brought back to India by her father (Appellant No. 2). On June 2, 2008, the wife gave birth to a son. In January 2009, the wife, allegedly on the husband’s instructions, sought to obtain a passport for their minor child. The husband also provided a sponsorship letter from his brother-in-law for their stay in the UK. However, the wife alleged that she faced physical and mental torture from the husband due to his financial demands. On April 7, 2010, she filed a complaint against her husband and his family for cruelty. In response, on May 13, 2010, the husband filed a complaint alleging that the wife and her father had forged his signature on the passport application.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Adugodi Police Station registered FIR No. 141/2010 against the Appellants under Sections 420, 468, 471 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, based on the husband’s complaint. Initially, the charges under Sections 468 and 471 were dropped, and a charge sheet was filed only under Section 420 read with Section 34 IPC. The Appellants filed a petition to quash the chargesheet, which was dismissed by the High Court. However, they were granted liberty to approach the Trial Magistrate for discharge. The Trial Magistrate dismissed their discharge application. Subsequently, on the husband’s application, the Magistrate ordered further investigation, leading to a supplementary chargesheet adding offences under Sections 468, 471, 420, 120-B, 201 IPC and Section 12(b) of the Passports Act, 1967. The Trial Magistrate declined to discharge the Appellants, which was upheld by the High Court. The Appellants then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court examined the following legal provisions:

• Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: Defines the offense of cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property. It states, “Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.”
• Section 415 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: Defines “cheating” as fraudulently or dishonestly inducing a person to deliver property or consent to retain property.
• Section 468 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: Defines forgery for the purpose of cheating. It states, “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.”
• Section 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: Deals with fraudulently using a forged document as genuine. It states, “Whoever fraudulently or dishonestly uses as genuine any document or electronic record which he knows or has reason to believe to be a forged document or electronic record, shall be punished in the same manner as if he had forged such document or electronic record.”
• Section 12(b) of the Passports Act, 1967: Addresses the offense of knowingly furnishing false information to obtain a passport. It states, “whoever knowingly furnishes any false information or suppresses any material information with a view to obtaining a passport or travel document under this Act or without lawful authority, alters or attempts to alter or causes to alter the entries made in a passport or travel document, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years or with fine which may extend to five thousand rupees or with both.”

Arguments

Appellants’ Arguments:

• The complaint by the husband was a counterblast to the wife’s complaint of cruelty.
• The husband had consented to obtaining the passport for the minor child.
• The husband had sent a sponsorship letter for the relocation of the wife and child to London, which mentioned the child’s passport number, implying consent.
• The State Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report was inconclusive about the alleged forgery.
• No new material was recovered between the original and supplementary chargesheets.
• The Trial Magistrate and High Court relied on a private lab report, which should not be given more weight than the State FSL report.
• No prima facie case was made out against the Appellants, and the Trial Magistrate should have discharged them.

Respondent’s Arguments:

• The husband was not in India when the passport application with his forged signature was submitted.
• The Passport Officer, who withheld the original passport application, was an accomplice in the destruction of evidence.
• The private lab report should not be discarded at the discharge stage, as its veracity can only be ascertained during trial.
• The State FSL report was ambiguous.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issues for consideration:

1. Whether a prima facie case has been made out to subject the Appellants to trial.
2. Whether the actions of the Appellants prima facie constitute the offense of cheating under Section 420 IPC.
3. Whether a prima facie case has been made out for forgery under Sections 468 and 471 IPC.
4. Whether there has been a violation of Section 12(b) of the Passports Act, 1967.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

✓ Krishna Chawla v. State of UP, (2021) 5 SCC 435*: The Supreme Court relied on this case to emphasize the duty of the Trial Magistrate to prevent frivolous prosecutions.

✓ P. Ramanatha Aiyar, Advanced Law Lexicon, 6th Edition, Vol. 1, pg. 903: The Supreme Court used this to define the term ‘deceitful’.

✓ Sushil Suri v. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2011) 5 SCC 708*: The Supreme Court cited this case to explain that forgery requires the preparation of a false document with dishonest intent.

✓ Vinay Tyagi v. Irshad Ali and others, (2013) 5 SCC 762*: The Supreme Court used this case to highlight that further investigation requires fresh evidence, not a re-evaluation of existing material.

✓ Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India and another (1978) 1 SCC 248*: The Supreme Court used this to assert that the right to travel abroad is a fundamental right.

✓ K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, (2019) 1 SCC 1*: The Supreme Court used this case to highlight that a child’s dignity is enshrined by the Constitution.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was heavily influenced by the lack of evidence supporting the charges of cheating and forgery. The Court emphasized that the essential ingredients of these offenses were missing. The Court also noted the procedural irregularities in the investigation, the unreliable nature of the private lab report, and the fact that the husband’s complaint appeared to be a counterblast to the wife’s complaint of cruelty. The Court was also concerned about the impact of the dispute on the rights and interests of the minor child.

Fact:Law Ratio

Logical Reasoning

Key Takeaways

• The Supreme Court emphasized that not every unlawful act qualifies as deceitful.
• For a charge of cheating under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, there must be a dishonest inducement to deliver property, resulting in damage or injury.
• Forgery requires the preparation of a false document with the dishonest intention of causing damage or injury.
• Further investigation under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, requires fresh evidence, not a re-evaluation of existing material.
• Paid reports from private agencies are considered unreliable evidence unless supported by corroborative proof.
• The right to travel abroad is a fundamental right, and any action that infringes upon the best interests of a minor child is not acceptable.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that:

• The appeal is allowed and the judgments of the High Court and Trial Magistrate are set aside.
• FIR No. 141/2010 and all proceedings arising from it are quashed.
• Respondent No. 2 is liable to pay costs of ₹1,00,000 to Appellant No. 1 within six weeks, failing which the Trial Magistrate is directed to initiate coercive measures for recovery.

Development of Law

The Supreme Court clarified that the essential ingredients of cheating and forgery must be present for charges under Sections 420, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 to stand. The Court also reiterated that further investigation requires fresh evidence and that private lab reports are not reliable unless corroborated. The ratio decidendi of the case is that in cases of marital disputes, courts should carefully examine the facts to ensure that criminal proceedings are not used as a tool for harassment.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court quashed the charges of cheating and forgery against the Appellants, emphasizing the absence of dishonest intention and the lack of evidence to support the allegations. The Court highlighted that the case stemmed from a marital dispute, and the husband’s complaint was a counterblast to the wife’s complaint of cruelty. The Court also noted the procedural irregularities in the investigation and the unreliable nature of the private lab report. The ruling underscores the need for courts to carefully scrutinize cases to prevent the abuse of criminal proceedings.