The Supreme Court recently issued a significant judgment regarding the necessity of substance in charges related to criminal offences. The Court ruled that offences in a chargesheet cannot be based solely on vague assertions of connivance, and there must be substantial evidence supporting such claims.
Key Observations by the Supreme Court
- Bald Assertions of Connivance: The Court emphasized that charges based on vague assertions of connivance are not sufficient. There must be concrete evidence to substantiate the claims made in the chargesheet.
- Absence of Intent Across Offences: The Court further held that if the intent is prima facie absent in relation to one offence in a particular transaction, it would be considered absent in respect of other related offences as well.
These observations were made in an appeal challenging the High Court of Madhya Pradesh’s decision to refuse the quashing of a First Information Report (FIR) under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Background of the Case
The charges in the FIR were filed under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) including:
- Section 419: Cheating by personation
- Section 420: Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property
- Section 467: Forgery of valuable security, will, etc.
- Section 468: Forgery for the purpose of cheating
- Section 471: Using a forged document as genuine
- Section 120B: Criminal conspiracy
These charges were brought against five individuals accused of forging a Power of Attorney and getting a property registered in their name.
The Petitioner’s Argument
One of the accused, Dinesh Kumar, an official of the Housing Board, filed a petition to quash the FIR. He argued that his actions, specifically executing the sale deed, were part of his official duties and that he was protected under Section 83 of the Madhya Pradesh Girha Nirman Mandal Adhiniyam, 1972, similar to Section 197 of the CrPC, which provides protection to public servants for actions performed in good faith.
Supreme Court’s Analysis and Ruling
The Court referred to several judgments interpreting Section 197 of the CrPC, which provides protection to public servants. The Court noted that public servants can only be prosecuted if their actions, constituting an offence, are directly and reasonably connected with their official duties.
The Court found that there was no evidence suggesting that the appellant, Dinesh Kumar, had derelicted his duty. It stated that there was no substance to the allegations of connivance, and the appellant was entitled to protection under the relevant provisions.
Examination of Offence of Cheating
The Court also examined whether the ingredients of the offence of cheating were present in this case. Referring to the Vijay Kumar Ghai v. State of W.B. (2022) case, the Court laid out the requirements to establish the offence of cheating, including:
- A false representation made by the accused.
- The accused’s prior knowledge that the representation was false.
- The representation made with dishonest intent.
- The act of inducing the person to deliver property or perform an act they would not have otherwise done.
The Court found that there was no evidence to suggest that these elements were met in the case of Dinesh Kumar.
Conspiracy Charges
Regarding the charge of criminal conspiracy under Section 120B, the Court referred to the Bilal Hajar v. State (2019) case, which stated that for a conspiracy to exist, there must be a meeting of minds of two or more persons to commit an illegal act.
The Court observed that there was no evidence that the appellant had knowledge of the forged Power of Attorney or was involved in a conspiracy. Therefore, the charge of conspiracy could not be sustained.
Final Ruling
Based on the principles established in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992), the Court concluded that the FIR did not disclose a cognizable offence. It quashed the decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, setting aside the criminal proceedings against the appellant.
Multiple-Choice Questions (MCQs):
1. What did the Supreme Court rule regarding charges based on connivance in a chargesheet?
a) They can be based on bald assertions of connivance
b) There must be concrete evidence supporting the charges
c) They can be filed without any evidence
d) The charges must only be based on the intent of the accused
Answer: b) There must be concrete evidence supporting the charges
2. What was the key issue in the case of Dinesh Kumar, the accused official?
a) Whether his actions were part of his official duties
b) Whether he had committed forgery
c) Whether he was guilty of criminal conspiracy
d) Whether he was involved in cheating
Answer: a) Whether his actions were part of his official duties
3. Which section of the Indian Penal Code deals with the offence of cheating by personation?
a) Section 467
b) Section 420
c) Section 419
d) Section 120B
Answer: c) Section 419
4. What does Section 197 of the CrPC protect?
a) It protects public servants from prosecution for acts done in good faith in their official duties
b) It protects public servants from all criminal charges
c) It provides immunity to judges only
d) It applies only to cases of bribery
Answer: a) It protects public servants from prosecution for acts done in good faith in their official duties
5. What was the Supreme Court’s conclusion regarding the charge of conspiracy in this case?
a) The charge of conspiracy was upheld
b) The charge of conspiracy was dismissed due to lack of evidence
c) The charge of conspiracy was transferred to a different court
d) The charge of conspiracy was modified
Answer: b) The charge of conspiracy was dismissed due to lack of evidence