Mariam Fasihuddin & Anr.   [Appellant(s)]  Vs.  State by Adugodi Police Station & Anr. [Respondent(s)]

Criminal Appeal No.335/ 2024

(2JB, SURYA KANT and DIPANKAR DATTA JJ., delivered by SURYA KANT, J.)

Facts: 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. Consequently, the Appellants’ prayer to discharge them in connection with   FIR   No.   141/2010   under   Sections   420, 468, 471   read   with Section   34   of   the   Indian Penal Code, 1860 registered at P.S. Adugodi, Bengaluru has been concurrently turned down.

Issues: Whether the actions of the Appellants prima facie constitute the offence of cheating under Section 420 IPC?

Arguments on behalf of counsel for appellants:

Mr.   Ranbir Singh Yadav, Learned   Counsel   appearing   for the Appellants, argued that Respondent No. 2’s complaint pertaining to the forgery of the passport application was merely a counterblast to the   Appellant   –   wife’s   complaint   alleging   cruelty   against   him.   He contended   that   Respondent   No.   2   had   expressly   consented   to obtaining   the   minor   child’s   passport   and   after   the   issuance   of passport, had   even   sent   the   sponsorship   letter   authored   by   his brother­-in­-law, Dr. M.K. Shariff, for the relocation of the Appellant – wife   and   the   minor   child   to   London.   It   was   argued   that   this sponsorship letter is vital since it had been obtained at the instance of Respondent No. 2 and it specifically mentioned the passport number of the minor child, thereby implying consent of Respondent No. 2.

Arguments on behalf of counsel for respondents:

Mr.   Narender   Hooda, Learned   Senior   Counsel representing   Respondent   No.   2, strongly   refuted   the   allegations levelled by the Appellants. He strenuously urged that Respondent No. 2 was not present in India during the period from 13.07.2008 to 17.11.2009, when the alleged passport application with his forged signatures was submitted, to procure the minor child’s passport. He further argued that the Trial Magistrate has unequivocally observed that the Passport Officer (Accused No. 4), who deliberately withheld the original passport application, was an accomplice in the offence of the   destruction   of   evidence.   Additionally, Mr.   Hooda   objected   to discarding the Truth Lab report at the stage of deciding the discharge application   on   the   premise   that   the   report   of   the   State   FSL   was ambiguous and that the veracity of the private lab report could be ascertained only at the time of trial.

Held: The court allowed the appeal and held that, “Consequently, the appeal is allowed; the impugned judgment of the High Court dated 18.02.2021, and that of the Trial Magistrate dated 15.03.2018, are hereby set aside. As a sequel thereto, the FIR No. 141 / 2010 registered at Police Station Adugodi, Bengaluru under Sections   420, 468, 471   read   with   Section   34   IPC, lodged   by Respondent  No.   2   against   the   Appellants   and   all   the   proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed.  Respondent No. 2 is liable to pay the cost of Rs. 1,00,000/­ to Appellant No. 1. Ordered accordingly, Respondent No. 2 shall pay the costs within six weeks, failing which the Trial Magistrate is directed to initiate coercive measures for recovery thereof.”