(2023) 10 S.C.R. 917: 2023 Insc 466
(2023) 10 S.C.R. 917: 2023 Insc 466
(2023) 10 S.C.R. 917: 2023 Insc 466
A them and their names be stuck down from the title of the complaint.
2.5 The said application was filed on 06.04.2011. By order dated
26.08.2011, the learned Trial Court ordered the aforesaid two
persons to be summoned as witnesses along with the record. That
the primary revision application before the first revisional court –
B learned Sessions Court came to be dismissed observing that the
revision is not maintainable against an interlocutory order and that
no order has been passed by the learned Trial Court on the
application dated 06.04.2011 of the complainant as regards not
pursuing the complaint against them. That the complainant again
filed an application dated 04.07.2014 before the learned Trial Court
C in Complaint No. 23 of 2009 submitting that he does not want to
pursue the application dated 06.04.2011.
2.6 The second application dated 06.08.2014 filed by the appellants
herein - original writ petitioners under Section 315(1)(a) and (b)
of Cr.P.C. before the learned ACJM came to be dismissed. The
D appellants herein filed revision application before the High Court
seeking quashing of the orders passed by the learned Trial Court
by which they were summoned as witnesses, which came to be
disposed of by the High Court, setting aside the summoning of the
witnesses while allowing the record to be submitted through duly
E authorized person. That thereafter the inquiry proceeded further
and the evidence of the relevant witnesses came to be recorded.
2.7 That after a period of 09 years after the original complaint, the
complainant moved an amendment application on 28.04.2017 for
amendment of the complaint, seeking to introduce substantial
F changes to the complaint as well as five more persons to be added
as accused and certain offences were also to be added in the
complaint. Shri Parkash Singh Badal came to be added as an
accused in the amendment sought. The said application for
amendment came to be dismissed by the learned Trial Court vide
order dated 07.06.2017.
G
2.8 The original complainant challenged the said order dated
07.06.2017 before the High Court, which was subsequently
withdrawn with liberty to approach the Trial Court. That on
08.08.2017, the original complainant – respondent No. 1 herein
filed second application for amendment. The complainant’s second
H
SHRI SUKHBIR SINGH BADAL v. BALWANT SINGH KHERA 923
AND ORS. [M. R. SHAH, J.]
4.1 That in the facts and circumstances of the case and considering A
the material on record and/or evidence recorded during the course
of the inquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. and therefore, when the
learned Trial Court was satisfied that a prima facie case is made
out against the accused for the offences under Sections 420, 465,
466, 467, 468, 471 read with 120B IPC, neither the learned Trial
B
Court has committed any error in summoning the accused to face
the trial for the aforesaid offences nor the Hon’ble High Court
has committed any error in disposing the revision application.
4.2 It is submitted that as such the impugned order passed by the
High Court is just within the parameters of the limitation of the
High Court while exercising the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. C
and thereafter when the Hon’ble High Court has dismissed the
revision application and has refused to quash the summoning order
and the criminal proceedings while exercising the limited jurisdiction
under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the same may not be interfered with
by this Court. D
4.3 It is further submitted by Shri Prashant Bhushan, learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the original complainant that the
case is a serious one of fraud, forgery and cheating committed by
the accused – appellants herein in order to obtain the registration
of the Shiromani Akali Dal (Badal), as a political party. It is E
submitted that the witnesses have stated that a fabricated document
presenting it as the Party’s “Memorandum” or “Rules and
Regulations” was submitted to the Election Commission of India
in order to project compliance with Section 29-A of the Act, 1951
and thereby, obtained registration and its benefits.
F
4.4 It is submitted that as per the witnesses examined during the
course of inquiry, Shri Parkash Singh Badal had issued instructions
to the concerned persons to file such document.
4.5 It is submitted that the petitioners- appellants herein Shri
Parkash Singh Badal had submitted a different Constitution before G
the Gurdwara Election Commission (GEC), which was in
conformity with the Sikh Gurdwaras Act, 1925 to seek election to
the Shiromani Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee (SGPC). It is
submitted that the eligibility criteria to contest the election of the
SGPC and the undertakings before the ECI and GEC are contrary
H
928 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 10 S.C.R.
A 5.5 Now, so far as the offence under Section 420 of the IPC is
concerned, “whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the
person deceived to deliver any property to any
person,……………” shall be said to have committed the offence
of cheating and shall be punished. Cheating is defined under Section
415 IPC, which reads as under:-
B
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
C 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”.
Explanation.—A dishonest concealment of facts is a
deception within the meaning of this section.”
D
5.6 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
E 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.
5.7 Now, so far as the offence under Section 465 is concerned.
As per Section 465, “whoever commits forgery shall be punished
F for the offence under Section 465”. Forgery is defined under
Section 463, which reads as under:-
“463. Forgery.—Whoever makes any false documents
or false electronic record or part of a document or electronic
record, with intent to cause damage or injury, to the public or
G 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, commits forgery.”
5.8 Therefore, as per Section 463, “whoever makes any false
H documents, with intent to cause damage or injury, to the public or
SHRI SUKHBIR SINGH BADAL v. BALWANT SINGH KHERA 933
AND ORS. [M. R. SHAH, J.]