No Wrongful Gain Or Loss: Kerala High Court Quashes Proceedings Against Wife For 'Fraudulently' Registering Vehicle In Dead Husband's Name

The Kerala High Court on Monday laid down that in order to satisfy the definition of 'fraudulently' it would be sufficient to if there was a non-economic advantage to the deceiver or a non-economic loss to the deceived, and that both elements need not co-exist. 

The Single Judge Bench of Justice K. Babu clarified that the expression 'defraud' involves two elements, namely, deceit and injury.

Relying upon the decision in Dr. Vimla v. The Delhi Administration (1963), the Court observed:

"Injury is something other than economic loss, that is, deprivation of property, whether movable or immovable, or of money, and it will include any harm whatever caused to any person in body, mind, reputation or such others. In short, it is a non-economic or nonpecuniary loss. A benefit or advantage to the deceiver will almost always cause loss or detriment to the deceived. Even in those rarecases where there is a benefit or advantage to the deceiver but no corresponding loss to the deceived, the second condition is satisfied".

As per the factual matrix, the deceased had owned a car which remained in the possession of his wife, the 1st petitioner herein, following his death. Allegedly, 1st petitioner, with the aid of her brother (2nd petitioner) submitted documents to secure permanent registration of the said car in the name of her deceased husband, without revealing the fact that the deceased was not alive at the time of submission of the documents. The officers at the Road Transport Office accordingly registered the vehicle in the name of the deceased, following which the petitioners attempted to dispose of the vehicle.

The complaint was registered by the father of the deceased alleging the petitioners to have committed the offences punishable under Sections 465 (Punishment for Forgery), 468 (Forgery for the purposes of cheating), 471 (Using as genuine a Forged Document) & 420 (Cheating) read with Section 34 of IPC. 

Perusing the definitions of 'Forgery', 'False Document', 'Dishonestly', and 'Fraudulently', the Court observed that the definition of 'defraud' involves two elements, namely, deceit and injury to the person deceived, and added that both elements need not be satisfied, as noted hereinbefore. 

Going by the factual circumstances, Justice Babu noted that although the prosecution alleged that the accused petitioners attempted to defraud the officers of the Regional Transport Office in getting the vehicle registered in the name of a deceased person, it had failed to produce any evidence to substantiate that the petitioners had made, signed or executed any of the alleged forged documents in question.

The Court further observed that the prosecution also had no case that the petitioners had obtained any wrongful gain or caused wrongful loss to any other person.

"This is a case where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR, the final report and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the petitioners," it said. 

The Court was thus of the considered view that continuation of proceedings in the case would amount to an abuse of process of the Court. It thereby quashed the proceedings against the petitioners. 

The petitioners were represented by Advocate Rajiv Nambisan. Public Prosecutor G. Sudheer, and Advocates K.R. Arun Krishnan, and Sanjana Rachel Jose appeared on behalf of the respondents. 

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 633

Case Title: Shoma G. Madan & Anr. v. State of Kerala & Anr. 

Case Number: Crl. M.C. No. 7545 of 2018

Click Here To Read/Download The Order