Representation of People Act, 1951 – s. 29-A(5) – Sikh Gurudwaras Act, 1925 – Penal Code, 1860 – ss. 420, 463, 465, 466, 467, 468, 471 r/w s. 120B, 191, 192 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – ss. 202, 204, 315, 482 – A private complaint was filed by the respondent no.1-original complainant u/ss. 463, 465, 466, 467, 468, 471, 191, 192 of IPC against the appellants – It was alleged in the complaint that while complying with the requirements of s.29-A(5) of the Representation of People Act, 1951 an affidavit was filed before the Election Commission of India (ECI), which conflicted with the affidavit/undertaking given to the Gurudwara Election Commission (GEC) – The said affidavit was sworn by the then president of SAD stating that the Party was adhering to the principle of secularism – Under the Sikh Gurdwaras Act, only Sikhs can become voters or contest elections to SGPC – That this restricts membership along religious lines and cannot be said to be secular – It was alleged that the Constitution submitted to GEC in conformity with the Sikh Gurdwaras Act is contrary to the one submitted to ECI – It was alleged that the SAD had filed a false Constitution with ECI to gain recognition as a political party – Trial Court passed summoning orders against the appellants to face the trial for the offences u/ss. 420, 465, 466, 467, 468, 471 r/w s.120B IPC – Aggrieved by the summoning order, the appellants filed an application before the High Court u/s. 482 Cr.P.C seeking quashing of the complaint as well as the summoning order – The High Court dismissed the said application and has refused to quash the criminal proceedings as well as the summoning order – On appeal, held: The ingredients for the offence of cheating are not at all satisfied as there is no question of deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly to deliver any property to any person and therefore, even on bare reading of the averments and allegations in the complaint, no case even remotely for the offence u/s. 420 IPC is made out – For the offence of forgery, there must be making of a false document with intent to cause damage or injury to the public or to any person and therefore, making the false documents is sine qua non – In the instant case, no false document has been produced and what was produced was the Memorandum and no other documents were produced – Even according to the original complainant, the Memorandum and the claim made at the time of registration of the Party that it has adopted a Memorandum accepting the secularism, the same was contrary to the Constitution of the Party produced before the Gurudwara Election Commission – Making a false claim and creating and producing the false document both are different and distinct – Looking to the averments and allegations in the complaint and even the material/evidence collected/recorded during the course of the inquiry and even assuming the complaint’s averments to be true, the ingredients of the offence punishable u/ss. 420, 465, 466, 467, 468, 471 are not at all made out – Under the circumstances, the entire criminal proceedings including the summoning order passed by the trial Court are quashed. Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. 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. There is no question of deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly to deliver any property to any person. Therefore, even on bare reading of the averments and allegations in the complaint, no case even remotely for the offence under Section 420 IPC is made out. [Para 5.6][932-D-E]
2. As per Section 463, “whoever makes any false documents, 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”, he is said to have committed the offence of forgery. Making a false document is defined under Section 464 IPC. Therefore, for the offence of forgery, there must be making of a false document with intent to cause damage or injury to the public AND ORS.
or to any person. Therefore, making the false documents is sine qua non. In the present case, no false document has been produced. What was produced was the Memorandum and no other documents were produced. Even according to the original complainant, the Memorandum and the claim made at the time of registration of the Party that it has adopted a Memorandum accepting the secularism, the same was contrary to the Constitution of the Party produced before the Gurudwara Election Commission. Making a false claim and creating and producing the false document both are different and distinct. [Paras 5.8, 5.9][932-H; 933-A-B; 934-B-C]
3. Looking to the averments and allegations in the complaint and even the material/evidence collected/recorded during the course of the inquiry and even assuming the complaint’s averments to be true, the ingredients of the offence punishable under Sections 420, 465, 466, 467, 468, 471 are not at all made out. 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 including the summoning order passed by the learned Trial Court. [Paras 5.11, 6][934-E-F; 935A-B] Sardar Sarup Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors. AIR 1959 SC 860; S. R. Bommai and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. (1994) 3 SCC 1 : [1994] 2 SCR 644; Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras v. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Sri Shirur Mutt [1954] SCR 1005; Birla Corporation Limited v. Adventz Investments and Holdings Limited and Ors. (2019) 16 SCC 610 : [2019] 7 SCR 655; Mohammed Ibrahim and Ors. v. State of Bihar and Anr. (2009) 8 SCC 751 : [2009] 13 SCR 1254; Sunil Bharti Mittal v. Central Bureau of Investigation (2015) 4 SCC 609 : [2015] 1 SCR 377; Mehmood Ul Rehman v. Khazir Mohammad Tunda and Ors. (2015) 12 SCC 420 : [2015] 4 SCR
841 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.