Supreme Court quashes High Court order on electricity connection dispute: Dilip vs. Satish (2022)

Date of the Judgment: 13 May 2022

Citation: (2022) INSC 509

Judges: Indira Banerjee J. and C.T. Ravikumar J.

Can a High Court quash a criminal case where a person is accused of forging a document to obtain an electricity connection? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case where a tenant was accused of forging a no-objection certificate to get electricity supply to his shop. The Court overturned the High Court’s decision, emphasizing that forging documents is indeed a criminal offense. This judgment clarifies that even if a person is entitled to a basic amenity like electricity, they cannot resort to illegal means to obtain it. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench of Justices Indira Banerjee and C.T. Ravikumar, with Justice Indira Banerjee authoring the opinion.

Case Background

The appellant, Dilip, owned a property in Aurangabad, Maharashtra, where the father of Respondent No. 1, Satish, was a tenant in a shop. In 1984, Dilip and his family filed an eviction suit against the tenant. While the suit was ongoing, Dilip inherited the property along with his mother. Satish and his mother then filed a petition in the Rent Controller’s Court, seeking directions for Dilip to provide an electricity connection to the shop. This application was rejected because the shop had always operated with a petromax and never had electricity. Subsequently, Satish applied for an electricity connection in his own name, submitting a “No Objection” letter dated 15.07.2006, purportedly signed by Dilip’s brother, Shantilal Maniklal Jaiswal. Dilip alleged that this letter was fabricated and that Shantilal’s signature was forged by Satish. Consequently, Dilip filed an FIR against Satish and others.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Aurangabad Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay allowed the criminal application filed by Satish and others and quashed the FIR No. 394/2018 lodged by Dilip. The High Court reasoned that Satish, being in possession of the shop and running a business, needed electricity, and the landlord was obstructing the same. The High Court further stated that the electricity board only seeks a no-objection certificate to verify that the tenant is authorized to be in possession and that the landlord cannot prevent the tenant from availing such a facility at his own cost. The High Court held that the alleged fabrication of the no-objection certificate did not cause any harm to the property or person of the landlord and that it would be a misuse of the process of law to direct the accused to face trial. Aggrieved by this, Dilip appealed to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court referred to Section 415 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which defines cheating. The section states:

“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”.”

Arguments

The arguments presented before the Court were as follows:

• Appellant’s Argument:
  • The appellant argued that the respondent had fabricated a no-objection certificate by forging the signature of his brother, Shantilal Maniklal Jaiswal, to obtain an electricity connection.
  • The appellant contended that this act of forgery and fabrication constitutes an offense under the Indian Penal Code.
  • The appellant emphasized that the High Court overlooked the definition of cheating under Section 415 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
• Respondent’s Argument:
  • The respondents argued that they were entitled to an electricity connection and that the landlord was obstructing the same.
  • The respondents contended that the no-objection certificate was only required to verify the tenant’s possession of the property.
  • The respondents asserted that the landlord cannot prevent the tenant from availing electricity at his own cost.
  • The respondents argued that the alleged fabrication of the no-objection certificate did not cause any harm to the property or person of the landlord.

Submissions Table

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame specific issues in the judgment. However, the core issue that the Court addressed was:

1. Whether the High Court was correct in quashing the FIR, given the allegations of forgery and fabrication of documents to obtain an electricity connection.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates how the Court dealt with the issue:

Authorities

The Supreme Court did not cite any specific cases or books in this judgment. However, it did refer to the following legal provision:

• Section 415 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: The Court referred to this section to emphasize that the act of deceiving someone to obtain a benefit, which causes harm, constitutes cheating. The Court highlighted that the High Court had overlooked this definition while quashing the FIR.

Authorities Table

Judgment

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

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court relied on Section 415 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860* to emphasize that the act of deceiving someone to obtain a benefit, which causes harm, constitutes cheating. The Court highlighted that the High Court had overlooked this definition while quashing the FIR.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

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

• The Court emphasized that fabricating records and forging signatures constitute offenses under the Indian Penal Code.
• The Court highlighted that the High Court had overlooked the definition of cheating under Section 415 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
• The Court acknowledged that while electricity is a basic amenity, it cannot be obtained through illegal means.

Sentiment Analysis Table

Fact:Law Ratio Table

Logical Reasoning:

The Supreme Court reasoned that the High Court had erred in quashing the FIR because the act of forging a document to obtain an electricity connection constitutes an offense under the Indian Penal Code. The Court emphasized that while electricity is a basic amenity, it cannot be obtained through illegal means.

The Court stated, “It cannot be said that fabrication and/or creation of records and/or forging a signature does not constitute an offence under the Indian Penal Code.” The Court further noted, “The High Court completely overlooked the definition of cheating in Section 415 of the IPC.” The Court also clarified, “Electricity cannot be declined to a tenant on the ground of failure/refusal of the landlord to issue no objection certificate.”

There were no dissenting opinions in this case. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench, with Justice Indira Banerjee authoring the opinion.

Key Takeaways

• Fabricating documents and forging signatures to obtain benefits, such as an electricity connection, are criminal offenses under the Indian Penal Code.
• High Courts should not quash FIRs in cases where there are clear allegations of forgery and fabrication, as these acts can cause harm and constitute cheating as defined under Section 415 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
• While electricity is a basic amenity, it must be obtained through legal means, and tenants cannot resort to illegal methods to secure it.
• Electricity supply authorities only need to verify if the applicant is in occupation of the premises and cannot insist on a no-objection certificate from the landlord.

Directions

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order quashing the FIR. However, the Court clarified that the electricity supply granted to the respondents should not be discontinued, provided they comply with the terms and conditions of the electricity department, including payment of charges.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that fabricating documents and forging signatures to obtain benefits, such as an electricity connection, are criminal offenses under the Indian Penal Code. This judgment reinforces the importance of adhering to legal procedures even when seeking essential amenities and clarifies that the High Courts should not quash FIRs in cases where there are clear allegations of forgery and fabrication.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Dilip (Dead) Through Lrs. vs. Satish & Others overturns the High Court’s decision to quash an FIR against a tenant accused of forging a no-objection certificate to obtain an electricity connection. The Supreme Court emphasized that such actions constitute criminal offenses under the Indian Penal Code and that while electricity is a basic amenity, it cannot be obtained through illegal means. This judgment reinforces the importance of following legal procedures and underscores that forging documents to gain benefits is a punishable offense.