Supreme Court Quashes Forgery Charges in Vakalatnama Case: Sasikala Pushpa vs. State of Tamil Nadu (2019)

Date of the Judgment: 7 May 2019

Citation: (2019) INSC 458

Judges: R. Banumathi, J. and S. Abdul Nazeer, J.

Can a simple mistake in a legal document lead to criminal charges of forgery? The Supreme Court of India recently examined this question in a case involving a vakalatnama, a document authorizing a lawyer to represent a client. The court had to decide whether an incorrect date on this document amounted to forgery. This case highlights the difference between a genuine mistake and intentional fraud in the eyes of the law.

The Supreme Court bench, consisting of Justices R. Banumathi and S. Abdul Nazeer, delivered the judgment. The court’s decision clarified the circumstances under which a mistake in a legal document can be considered a criminal act.

Case Background

The case began with a complaint filed in 2011 by Banumathi, a former maid, alleging sexual harassment against Sasikala Pushpa (the first appellant), her husband (the third appellant), and her son (the second appellant). Based on this complaint, a criminal case was registered against all the appellants in Crime No.5/2016.

In response to these charges, the appellants filed an anticipatory bail application before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court. The vakalatnama, which is a document authorizing a lawyer to represent a client, was filed along with the bail application. The vakalatnama stated that it was signed by the appellants on 17.08.2016 in Madurai. However, the prosecution alleged that the first appellant had left for Singapore from New Delhi on 17.08.2016, and the third appellant had left for Singapore from Bengaluru on 18.08.2016. This discrepancy led to allegations of forgery against the appellants.

The High Court, upon noticing the discrepancy, directed the Registrar (Judicial) to lodge a complaint against the appellants for forgery. This led to the registration of FIR in Crime No.1331/2016.

Timeline:

Legal Framework

The legal framework for this case primarily involves the following provisions:

• Sections 193, 466, 468, and 471 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): These sections deal with offences related to giving false evidence, forgery of records, forgery for the purpose of cheating, and using forged documents as genuine, respectively.
• Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC): This section outlines the procedure for lodging a complaint by a court for offences committed in relation to a proceeding in that court. It states that a court may file a complaint if it believes it is expedient in the interest of justice.

The court had to determine whether the actions of the appellants fell within the ambit of these provisions, particularly whether the incorrect date on the vakalatnama constituted forgery and whether it was expedient in the interest of justice to initiate criminal proceedings.

Arguments

Appellants’ Arguments:

• The appellants argued that the incorrect date on the vakalatnama was a clerical error and not an intentional act of forgery.
• They submitted that the vakalatnama did contain their signatures, and the mistake was inadvertent.
• The appellants contended that the High Court did not record a finding that it was ‘expedient in the interest of justice’ to lodge a complaint, as required under Section 340 of the CrPC.
• They argued that the High Court erred in treating the vakalatnama as the main reason for dismissing their anticipatory bail application.

State’s Arguments:

• The State argued that the appellants committed fraud upon the court by filing a vakalatnama with an incorrect date, suggesting they were present in Madurai when they were not.
• The State contended that the first appellant had not signed the vakalatnama in Madurai on 18.08.2016, and therefore, the appellants deliberately misled the court.
• The State argued that the appellants were not cooperating with the investigation and the first appellant provided evasive replies to the questions raised by the Investigation Officer.
• The State relied on the judgment in Sachida Nand Singh and another v. State of Bihar and another (1998) 2 SCC 493, to argue that forgery committed outside the court but used in court also affects the administration of justice.

Submissions of the Parties:

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issue for consideration:

1. Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the court was right in issuing directions to lodge the complaint against the appellants before the concerned police station for forgery and for creation of a forged document.

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:

Cases:

• Iqbal Singh Marwah v. Meenakshi Marwah (2005) 4 SCC 370 (Supreme Court of India): This case was cited to emphasize that a court is not bound to make a complaint regarding the commission of an offence and should only do so if it is expedient in the interest of justice. The court should consider the impact of the offence on the administration of justice.
• Sachida Nand Singh and another v. State of Bihar and another (1998) 2 SCC 493 (Supreme Court of India): This case was referred to by the State to argue that forgery committed outside the court but used in court also affects the administration of justice. However, the Supreme Court distinguished this case, stating that the vakalatnama in the present case was not a forged document.
• Amarsang Nathaji v. Hardik Harshadbhai Patel (2017) 1 SCC 117 (Supreme Court of India): This case was cited to highlight that before proceeding under Section 340 CrPC, the court has to be satisfied about the deliberate falsehood on a matter of substance and there must be a reasonable foundation for the charge.
• Chintamani Malviya v. High Court of M.P. (2018) 6 SCC 15 (Supreme Court of India): This case reaffirmed the view that some inaccuracy in the statement or mere false statement may not invite a prosecution.
• Pepsi Foods Limited and another v. Special Judge Magistrate and others (1998) 5 SCC 749 (Supreme Court of India): This case was cited to emphasize that summoning an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter, especially when the case is registered on the direction of the High Court.
• Central Bureau of Investigation v. Ravi Shankar Srivastava, IAS and Another (2006) 7 SCC 188 (Supreme Court of India): This case was cited to highlight the inherent powers of the High Court to quash proceedings to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice.

Legal Provisions:

• Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC): This provision was central to the case, as it deals with the procedure for lodging a complaint by a court for offences committed in relation to a proceeding in that court. The court emphasized that the power under this section should be exercised only when it is expedient in the interest of justice.
• Sections 193, 466, 468, and 471 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): These sections were considered to determine whether the actions of the appellants constituted offences related to giving false evidence and forgery.

Judgment

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

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Supreme Court followed Iqbal Singh Marwah v. Meenakshi Marwah [CITATION](2005) 4 SCC 370* to emphasize that a court should only file a complaint if it is expedient in the interest of justice and not in every case.
• The Supreme Court distinguished Sachida Nand Singh and another v. State of Bihar and another [CITATION](1998) 2 SCC 493*, stating that the vakalatnama was not a forged document.
• The Supreme Court followed Amarsang Nathaji v. Hardik Harshadbhai Patel [CITATION](2017) 1 SCC 117* to highlight that there must be a deliberate falsehood on a matter of substance.
• The Supreme Court followed Chintamani Malviya v. High Court of M.P. [CITATION](2018) 6 SCC 15* to reiterate that mere inaccuracy in a statement may not invite prosecution.
• The Supreme Court followed Pepsi Foods Limited and another v. Special Judge Magistrate and others [CITATION](1998) 5 SCC 749* to highlight the seriousness of summoning an accused in a criminal case.
• The Supreme Court followed Central Bureau of Investigation v. Ravi Shankar Srivastava, IAS and Another [CITATION](2006) 7 SCC 188* to highlight the inherent powers of the High Court to quash proceedings.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following:

• Absence of Intentional Deception: The court emphasized that the incorrect date on the vakalatnama was a mistake and not an intentional act of fraud.
• Lack of Wrongful Gain: There was no evidence to suggest that the appellants gained anything by the incorrect date.
• Signatures Admitted: The appellants admitted their signatures on the vakalatnama, which reduced the possibility of forgery.
• Expediency of Justice: The court noted that the High Court did not record a finding that it was expedient in the interest of justice to lodge a complaint, as required under Section 340 of the CrPC.

Sentiment Analysis of Reasons Given by the Supreme Court:

Fact:Law Ratio:

Logical Reasoning:

The court considered alternative interpretations, such as the State’s argument that the incorrect date was intentional fraud. However, the court rejected this interpretation because there was no evidence of intentional deception or wrongful gain. The court emphasized that a mere mistake does not equate to fraud.

The court’s decision was based on the principle that criminal prosecution should not be initiated for minor errors or inaccuracies, especially when there is no intention to deceive or cause harm. The court also emphasized the importance of considering whether it is expedient in the interest of justice to initiate criminal proceedings.

The court reasoned that the appellants had admitted their signatures on the vakalatnama and that the incorrect date was an inadvertent mistake. The court also noted that the High Court did not record a finding that it was expedient in the interest of justice to lodge a complaint. The court concluded that there was no prima facie evidence to show that the appellants had intended to cause damage or injury and that the direction of the High Court to lodge a criminal complaint against the appellants could not be sustained.

The court stated that “Fraud implies intentionally deception aimed or achieving some wrongful gain or causing wrongful loss or injury to another. Intention being the mens rea is the essential ingredient to hold that a fraud has been played upon the court.”

The court also stated that “mere incorrect statement in the vakalatnama would not amount to create a forged document and it cannot be the reason for exercising the jurisdiction under Section 340 Cr.P.C. for issuance of direction to lodge the criminal complaint against the appellants.”

The court further stated that “Since the disputed version in the vakalatnama appears to be an inadvertent mistake with no intention to make misrepresentation, in our view, the direction of the High Court to lodge a criminal complaint against the appellants cannot be sustained and the same is liable to be set aside.”

Key Takeaways

• A mere mistake in a legal document, such as an incorrect date, does not automatically constitute forgery.
• Criminal prosecution should not be initiated for minor errors or inaccuracies, especially when there is no intention to deceive or cause harm.
• Courts must consider whether it is expedient in the interest of justice to initiate criminal proceedings under Section 340 of the CrPC.
• The intention behind an action is crucial in determining whether it constitutes fraud.
• The Supreme Court has the power to quash criminal proceedings to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice.

This judgment clarifies that not every error in legal documents warrants criminal prosecution. It emphasizes the need to distinguish between genuine mistakes and intentional acts of fraud. This decision will likely impact how courts handle cases involving minor errors in legal documents and ensure that criminal proceedings are not initiated without proper justification.

Directions

The Supreme Court issued the following directions:

• The impugned order of the High Court issuing direction to lodge a criminal complaint against the appellants was set aside.
• The FIR in Crime No.1331/2016 and the charge sheet filed thereon were quashed.
• The interim protection granted to the appellants in Crime No.5/2016 was extended till the disposal of the criminal case arising out of Crime No.5/2016.
• The interim protection granted to the appellants in Crime No.276/2016 was extended till the disposal of the criminal case arising out of Crime No.276/2016, and anticipatory bail was granted to the appellants in the said case.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a mere mistake in a legal document, such as an incorrect date, does not automatically constitute forgery and warrant criminal prosecution. The court emphasized that there must be an intention to deceive or cause harm for an action to be considered fraud. This judgment clarifies the interpretation of Section 340 of the CrPC, emphasizing that courts must consider whether it is expedient in the interest of justice to initiate criminal proceedings.

This judgment does not change the previous position of law but clarifies it by emphasizing the need to distinguish between genuine mistakes and intentional acts of fraud. It reinforces the principle that criminal prosecution should not be initiated for minor errors or inaccuracies, especially when there is no intention to deceive or cause harm.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s judgment in Sasikala Pushpa and Others vs. State of Tamil Nadu quashed the forgery charges against the appellants, holding that the incorrect date on the vakalatnama was a mistake and not an intentional act of fraud. The court emphasized that a mere error in a legal document does not automatically equate to forgery and that criminal prosecution should not be initiated without proper justification. The court also highlighted the importance of considering whether it is expedient in the interest of justice to initiate criminal proceedings under Section 340 of the CrPC. This judgment reinforces the principle that criminal law should not be used to address minor errors or inaccuracies, especially when there is no intention to deceive or cause harm.