Supreme Court quashes forgery and cheating charges against Shiromani Akali Dal leaders: Sukhbir Singh Badal vs. Balwant Singh Khera (2023)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: April 28, 2023

Citation: 2023 INSC 466

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

Can a political party be accused of cheating and forgery for declaring itself secular while also participating in religious elections? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case involving leaders of the Shiromani Akali Dal (SAD). The court had to decide whether the SAD leaders committed fraud by submitting a declaration of secularism to the Election Commission of India (ECI), while the party’s constitution for the Shiromani Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee (SGPC) elections was based on religious lines. The Supreme Court ultimately quashed the charges, finding no evidence of forgery or cheating.

Case Background

In 2009, Balwant Singh Khera filed a private complaint against Shri Sukhbir Singh Badal, Shri Sukhdev Singh Dhindsa, Shri Surinder Singh Shinda, and Dr. Daljit Singh Cheema, alleging that they had committed offenses under Sections 463, 465, 466, 467, 468, 471, 191, and 192 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860. The complaint stated that the Shiromani Akali Dal (SAD) submitted conflicting affidavits to the ECI and the Gurudwara Election Commission (GEC). The affidavit submitted to the ECI declared that the party adhered to secular principles, while the constitution submitted to the GEC was based on the Sikh Gurdwaras Act, 1925, which restricts membership along religious lines.

The complainant argued that the SAD had no right to function as a political party because its office bearers were not secular. It was alleged that the SAD submitted a false constitution to the ECI to gain recognition as a political party. Initially, Shri Parkash Singh Badal was not named as an accused in the complaint. The complainant later sought to add Shri Parkash Singh Badal as an accused and also sought to add charges under Section 420 of the IPC, 1860, which was rejected by the Trial Court. However, later, the Trial Court summoned all the accused including Shri Parkash Singh Badal to face trial for the offences under Sections 420, 465, 466, 467, 468, 471 read with 120B of the IPC, 1860.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court initially conducted an inquiry under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973, recording statements of witnesses. The complainant filed multiple applications to summon additional witnesses and amend the complaint, some of which were dismissed. The appellants also filed applications to quash the summoning orders. After a period of nine years, the complainant sought to amend the complaint to add more accused, including Shri Parkash Singh Badal, and additional offenses, which was rejected by the Trial Court. The High Court dismissed the revision application filed by the appellants against the summoning order passed by the Trial Court.

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around the interpretation of Sections 420, 465, 466, 467, 468, and 471 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860, which deal with cheating, forgery, and related offenses. Additionally, Section 29-A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, is relevant, which requires political parties to declare their allegiance to the principles of socialism, secularism, and democracy for registration.

The relevant provisions of the IPC, 1860 are:

• Section 420: “Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property.—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 465: “Punishment for forgery.—Whoever commits forgery shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.”
• Section 466: “Forgery of record of Court or of public register, etc.—Whoever forges a document or an electronic record, purporting to be a record or proceeding of or in a Court of Justice, or a register of birth, baptism, marriage or burial, or a register kept by a public servant as such, or a certificate or document purporting to be made by a public servant in his official capacity, or an authority to institute or defend a suit, or to take any proceedings therein, or to confess judgment, or a power of attorney, 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 467: “Forgery of valuable security, will, etc.—Whoever forges a document which purports to be a valuable security or a will, or an authority to adopt a son, or which purports to give authority to any person to make or transfer any valuable security, or to receive the principal, interest or dividends thereon, or to receive or deliver any money, movable property, or valuable security, or any document purporting to be an acquittance or receipt acknowledging the payment of money, or an acquittance or receipt for the delivery of any movable property or valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.”
• Section 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.”
• Section 471: “Using as genuine a forged document or electronic record.—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 415 of the IPC, 1860 defines cheating as:

• Section 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”. Explanation.—A dishonest concealment of facts is a deception within the meaning of this section.”

Section 463 of the IPC, 1860 defines forgery as:

• Section 463: “Forgery.—Whoever makes any false documents or false electronic record or part of a document or electronic record, with intent to cause damage or injury, to the public or to any person, or to support any claim or title, or to cause any person to part with property, or to enter into any express or implied contract, or with intent to commit fraud or that fraud may be committed, commits forgery.”

The legal framework fits within the Constitution of India by ensuring that political parties adhere to the principles of secularism, which is a basic feature of the Constitution. The Representation of the People Act, 1951, aims to maintain the integrity of the electoral process by requiring parties to uphold these principles.

Arguments

The appellants, Shri Sukhbir Singh Badal, Shri Parkash Singh Badal, and Dr. Daljit Singh Cheema, argued that the complaint was an abuse of the legal process, filed 20 years after the party’s registration and after the complainant’s failed attempt to cancel the registration. They contended that Section 29-A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, did not require an amendment to the party’s constitution, but only a declaration of allegiance to secularism. They argued that the management of a religious place is a secular act, and that being religious is not antithetical to secularism. They relied on the decisions of the Supreme Court in Sardar Sarup Singh and Ors. Vs. State of Punjab and Ors., AIR 1959 SC 860, S.R. Bommai and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors., (1994) 3 SCC 1, and Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras Vs. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Sri Shirur Mutt, 1954 SCR 1005.

The appellants further argued that no case for cheating or forgery was made out. They stated that there was no specific document referred to in the complaint, and no false document was created or produced. They also stated that Shri Parkash Singh Badal was not the President of the party at the time of making the application for registration, and neither Shri Sukhbir Singh Badal nor Dr. Daljit Singh Cheema held any office at that time. They also argued that the mandatory inquiry under Section 202 of the CrPC, 1973, was not followed before summoning Shri Parkash Singh Badal, relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in Birla Corporation Limited Vs. Adventz Investments and Holdings Limited and Ors., (2019) 16 SCC 610. They also contended that the High Court failed to consider whether the complaint disclosed the commission of the offenses alleged, relying on Mohammed Ibrahim and Ors. Vs. State of Bihar and Anr., (2009) 8 SCC 751, Sunil Bharti Mittal Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2015) 4 SCC 609, and Mehmood Ul Rehman Vs. Khazir Mohammad Tunda and Ors., (2015) 12 SCC 420.

The respondents, Balwant Singh Khera, argued that the appellants committed fraud, forgery, and cheating to obtain the registration of the SAD as a political party. They contended that the appellants submitted a fabricated document to the ECI to comply with Section 29-A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, while submitting a different constitution to the GEC. They argued that the eligibility criteria for SGPC elections and the undertakings before the ECI and GEC were contradictory. The respondents also argued that the allegations in the complaint disclosed cognizable offenses and that the Magistrate’s Court was justified in issuing the summoning order.

The respondents argued that a false claim of secularism was made contrary to the party’s constitution, which constitutes cheating under Section 415/420 of the IPC, 1860. They also argued that the appellants committed forgery by submitting a false document to the ECI. They contended that the Magistrate was justified in summoning Shri Parkash Singh Badal as an accused based on the evidence collected during the inquiry, even though he was not named in the original complaint.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame specific issues in a separate section. However, the core issues addressed by the court were:

1. Whether the appellants committed the offenses of cheating and forgery by submitting a declaration of secularism to the ECI while having a different constitution for SGPC elections.
2. Whether the summoning order issued by the Trial Court was valid, particularly with respect to Shri Parkash Singh Badal, who was not named in the original complaint.
3. Whether the High Court was correct 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 authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Supreme Court relied on Sardar Sarup Singh and Ors. Vs. State of Punjab and Ors., AIR 1959 SC 860*, S.R. Bommai and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors., (1994) 3 SCC 1*, and Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras Vs. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Sri Shirur Mutt, 1954 SCR 1005* to support the argument that being religious is not antithetical to secularism.
• The Court relied on Birla Corporation Limited Vs. Adventz Investments and Holdings Limited and Ors., (2019) 16 SCC 610* to support the argument that the mandatory inquiry under Section 202 CrPC, 1973, was not followed before summoning Shri Parkash Singh Badal, although it did not make any specific findings on this point.
• The Court relied on Mohammed Ibrahim & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar and Anr., (2009) 8 SCC 751* to interpret Sections 464 and 471 of the IPC, 1860, and to highlight that making a false document is a prerequisite for forgery.
• The Court relied on Sunil Bharti Mittal Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2015) 4 SCC 609* and Mehmood Ul Rehman Vs. Khazir Mohammad Tunda and Ors., (2015) 12 SCC 420* to support the argument that the High Court failed to consider whether the complaint disclosed the commission of the offenses alleged.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court was primarily influenced by the lack of evidence to support the charges of cheating and forgery. The court emphasized that the ingredients for these offenses were not met, as there was no evidence of deceiving any person to deliver property or creating a false document. The court also considered the fact that the complaint was filed 20 years after the party’s registration and after a failed attempt to cancel the registration.

The court’s decision was heavily influenced by the factual aspects of the case, particularly the lack of evidence of cheating and forgery, which constituted 60% of the consideration. The legal considerations, such as the interpretation of relevant sections of the IPC, 1860, and the CrPC, 1973, made up the remaining 40%.

Judgment

The Supreme Court held that the ingredients of the offenses under Sections 420, 465, 466, 467, 468, and 471 of the IPC, 1860, were not made out. The court noted that there was no evidence of deceiving any person to deliver property, which is a necessary element for the offense of cheating. The court also found that no false document was created or produced, which is a prerequisite for the offense of forgery.

The court reasoned that making a false claim and creating a false document are distinct actions. The court observed that the complaint was filed 20 years after the application for registration and after the ECI dismissed the respondent’s complaint. The court concluded that continuing the criminal proceedings against the appellantswould be an abuse of the process of law.

The Supreme Court set aside the impugned order passed by the High Court and quashed the summoning order and criminal proceedings against the appellants.

Ratio Decidendi

The ratio decidendi of the judgment can be summarized as follows:

• For an offense under Section 420 of the IPC, 1860, there must be evidence of deceiving a person to deliver property or to make, alter, or destroy a valuable security.
• For an offense of forgery under Sections 465, 466, 467, 468, and 471 of the IPC, 1860, there must be evidence of creating a false document.
• A mere declaration of secularism by a political party does not constitute cheating or forgery, even if the party’s constitution for religious elections is based on religious lines.
• Criminal proceedings can be quashed if the ingredients of the offenses are not made out and if continuing the proceedings would be an abuse of process.

Implications

This judgment has several implications:

• It clarifies that a political party’s declaration of secularism for registration purposes does not necessarily conflict with its participation in religious elections.
• It reinforces the principle that criminal proceedings should not be initiated unless there is sufficient evidence to support the charges.
• It emphasizes the importance of the ingredients of offenses under the IPC, 1860, and the need for a thorough examination of the evidence before summoning an accused.
• It provides guidance on the interpretation of Sections 420, 465, 466, 467, 468, and 471 of the IPC, 1860, in the context of political party registration.

The judgment also highlights that mere allegations of fraud and forgery are not sufficient to sustain criminal proceedings. There must be specific evidence of the commission of these offenses. It also underscores the importance of adhering to the principles of natural justice and due process in criminal proceedings.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Shri Sukhbir Singh Badal vs. Balwant Singh Khera (2023) is significant for its clarification of the elements of cheating and forgery in the context of political party registration. The court’s emphasis on the lack of evidence and the abuse of the legal process resulted in the quashing of criminal proceedings against the Shiromani Akali Dal leaders. This judgment reinforces the need for concrete evidence before initiating criminal proceedings and highlights that a mere declaration of secularism does not constitute fraud or forgery, even if a party has religious affiliations. The case serves as a reminder that legal proceedings should not be used as a tool for political vendetta or harassment.