In a defining legal interpretation, a Supreme Court bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and Dipankar Datta of the Supreme Court of India delivered a nuanced judgment, elucidating the complexity of deceitful and unlawful acts. The justices stated, “Every deceitful act is not unlawful, just as not every unlawful act is deceitful, and some acts may be termed both as unlawful as well as deceitful.
In a pivotal judgment that redefines the legal boundaries of deceit and unlawful acts, the Supreme Court of India, on Monday, in the case of, delivered a nuanced verdict on January 22, 2024. The Court, in its wisdom, quashed an FIR against a woman accused of forging her husband’s signature to secure their son’s passport, underscoring the principle that not every deceitful act is unlawful. Such acts alone will fall within the purview of Section 420 IPC. This statement from the bench provides a clear distinction between acts that are merely deceitful and those that constitute a criminal offense under the Indian Penal Code, particularly under Section 420 which deals with cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property.
Also read- Pennar River Dispute | Supreme Court Directs Central Government To Establish Panel (lawchakra.in)
Justice Surya Kant, who authored the judgment for the bench, which also included Justice Dipankar Datta, made several critical observations. He stated,
“The Appellants assail the judgment dated 18.02.2021, passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru, whereby their Criminal Revision Petition challenging the order dated 15.03.2018 of the VI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru has been dismissed.”
This set the stage for a detailed examination of the case.
Delving into the facts, the judgment outlined,
“The brief facts that are relevant to the present proceedings are set out as follows: The Appellant No.1-wife, and Respondent No.2-husband got married in Bengaluru on 02.08.2007…”
It went on to describe the tumultuous marital relationship and the subsequent events leading to the legal battle.
The Court critically analyzed the investigation process, noting,
“In the course of ‘further investigation’, no new material was unearthed by the investigating agency.”
Justice Kant emphasized,
“The provision for submitting a supplementary report infers that fresh oral or documentary evidence should be obtained rather than reevaluating or reassessing the material already collected.”
Addressing the core issue of the case, the judgment stated,
“The Trial Magistrate and the High Court unfortunately failed to appreciate that the genesis of the present controversy lies in a marital dispute.”
The Court observed that the husband’s complaint seemed retaliatory, coming after an FIR had been lodged against him.
Justice Kant pointed out the lack of evidence for forgery, stating,
“A paid report obtained from a private laboratory seems to be a frail, unreliable, unsafe, untrustworthy and imprudent form of evidence, unless supported by some other corroborative proof.”
He lamented the absence of substantive proof from the husband and the investigating agency.
The judgment also raised pertinent questions about the husband’s motives, asking,
“Why does Respondent No.2 want to deprive his minor child of a passport?” and “What is the tangible loss, injury or damage suffered by Respondent No.2 due to procurement of a passport by his minor son?”
Concluding the judgment, Justice Kant declared,
“The sum and substance of the above discussion is that the elementary ingredients of ‘cheating’ and ‘forgery’ are conspicuously missing. Thus, the continuation of the criminal proceedings against the Appellants is nothing but an abuse of the process of law.”
The Supreme Court, therefore, allowed the appeal, setting aside the previous judgments and quashing the FIR. It also imposed a cost of Rs 1 lakh on the husband, payable to the appellant.
This landmark judgment by the Supreme Court not only brings closure to a specific case but also serves as a guiding light in distinguishing between deceitful acts and their legal implications, emphasizing the need for a discerning and context-sensitive application of the law.
