Summary
A complaint case under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC against four daughters-in-law who were legatees under an unregistered will, alleging the will was forged after the testator's death to defeat a sale deed executed by one son, was quashed. The Court found none of the offences made out, held that the complaint was a circuitous tool to abuse the process of law after the complainant failed to pursue his civil and revenue remedies, and set aside the High Court's refusal to quash under Section 482 CrPC.
Issues
- Whether the allegations in Complaint Case No.627 of 2002 made out the ingredients of the offences under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC against the accused-appellants, who were only legatees under the will in question.
- Whether the High Court ought to have exercised its inherent power under Section 482 CrPC to quash a complaint that gave a civil dispute over a will, mutation and sale deed the cloak of a criminal offence.
Provisions considered
- Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Applying sub-paras (1), (3), (5) and (7) of paragraph 102 of Bhajan Lal, together with Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia, R.K. Vijayasarathy, Vishal Noble Singh and Anand Kumar Mohatta (citing L. Muniswamy), the Court held that the High Court can examine whether an essentially civil matter has been cloaked as a criminal offence and must quash proceedings whose continuation would be an abuse of process; the impugned order refusing to do so was set aside. (¶¶ 8.1, 8.7, 8.8, 8.9, 9, 10)
- Section 419, Indian Penal Code, 1860Cheating by personation: on the facts no cheating by impersonation was found against the legatees. (¶¶ 8.2, 8.5)
- Section 420, Indian Penal Code, 1860Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property: the Court found no cheating or dishonest inducement of the complainant by the accused-appellants; following Inder Mohan Goswami, a fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of the inducement is the gist of the offence. (¶¶ 8.2, 8.5, 8.7)
- Section 467, Indian Penal Code, 1860Forgery of a valuable security or will: per Inder Mohan Goswami the essential ingredients are a forged document, the accused who forged it, and a document of the enumerated kind; the allegation that the legatees conspired to forge the will after the testator's death was not made out on the record. (¶¶ 8.2, 8.4, 8.5, 8.7)
- Section 468, Indian Penal Code, 1860Forgery for the purpose of cheating: not made out, there being no cheating established against the accused-appellants. (¶¶ 8.2, 8.5)
- Section 471, Indian Penal Code, 1860Using as genuine a forged document: not made out, since the offences of forgery and cheating themselves were not established against the legatees. (¶¶ 8.2, 8.5)
Held
- Where the accused are only legatees under the will in question, allegations that they conspired to fabricate a forged will after the testator's death to circumvent a sale deed do not disclose cheating by personation, cheating with dishonest inducement to deliver property, criminal breach of trust, or the offences of forgery under Sections 467, 468 and 471 IPC. (¶¶ 8.3, 8.4, 8.5)
- The chronology showed the complaint was a circuitous tool to abuse the process of law: the criminal proceedings of 2001 were instituted about seven years after the mutation order, four years after the ex parte ad interim injunction in the legatees' suit, and three years after the complainant's objections to the mutation order were rejected, remedies he never pursued further. (¶¶ 8.6, 9)
- Under Section 482 CrPC the High Court can examine whether a matter essentially of a civil nature has been given the cloak of a criminal offence; courts must be vigilant that the criminal justice machinery is not misused for oblique motives, and a proceeding should be quashed where its continuation would be an abuse of process or where the chances of ultimate conviction are bleak and no useful purpose would be served. (¶¶ 8.7, 8.8, 8.9)
- Sub-paragraphs (1), (3), (5) and (7) of paragraph 102 of Bhajan Lal squarely applied; the case was another in a string of recent cases disguising a civil dispute as criminal, had been pending for over two decades, and its continuation would serve no purpose. (¶¶ 8.1, 9)
Result
Appeal allowed; High Court order dated 09.04.2019 set aside; proceedings in Complaint Case No.627 of 2002 pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Basti, quashed. The observations are not to bear on any civil proceedings pending between the parties.